Conference quark::mennotes

    
    
    Probably a small _percentage_ of the white race aere in the _top_
    management positions.  Mainly because the ration of positions per
    population.
    
    fred();

    I would tend to think that the majority of top executives i.e., CEO,
    Exec-VP, etc would be white males in the Fotune 500.  I base this on a
    couple of factors, none of which I believe are gender/race based.
    
    If you look at Digital as a microcosm of the Fortune 500 and where our
    CEO came from.  Bob Palmer was the CEO of Mostek, a semi-conductor
    company.  When he sold Mostek and was hired by Digital he was brought
    in as VP of semi-conductor manufacturing.  When KO was looking for an
    heir-apparent he had a natural affinity to look to a technologist to
    follow him.  Palmer was the natural selection.  I don't think there
    was any prejudice, etc in the decision.  I believe it was based on
    Olsen's opinion of who was the best person to carry on and improve
    Digital.
    
    I believe the same is true for the majority of Fortune 500 Companies. 
    When they are looking for CEOs, etc they look to others in the industry
    to recruit.  Until all other groups that presently scream about
    discrimination, etc achieve top positions in non-Fortune 500 companies
    and form the pool of possible replacements, there will be a
    preponderance of white males in the top slots.  I expect this situation
    to change over the coming years as more and more people move up in
    smaller companies and make the move to larger companies.  This will be
    a geologic shift and not an over-night change.  As a personal editorial
    note, I think that this is what frustrates the other groups.  They know
    they don't have the overall credentials, althought they are gaining
    them, and are presently not being considered.  This makes it convenient
    for them to claim discrimination, xxxism, etc when the reality is that
    they need to acquire the background before they get the position, not
    the reverse.
    

    
    One of the main reasons that most of the Fortune xxxx companies are
    headed by white males is much as you say.  They are by far the 
    greatest pool of _proven_ leadership.  As in your example, Digital
    has not shortage of white male VP's.  Why not one of _them_ rather
    than Bob Palmer.  The answer is  Bob Palmer has a record of creating 
    a successful company already.  You can get away with hiring an EEO that 
    turns out to be a bust in the lower management levels, but with the 
    CEO you are betting the multi-billion dollar company, and the board 
    of directors will (rightly or wrongly) be more reluctant to experiment.
    The same reason pro coaches tend to just rotate from club to club.
    
    As I indicated in another note.  One way that Affirmative action
    has really hurt women/minorities is by putting unqualified people
    in positions for the sake of EEO.  When you do that, the only thing
    accomplished is to confirm the negative stereotypes.

    fred():

    .3
    
    One other example of the law of unintended consequences with AA is that
    the individual promoted to a posittion they don't merit is that it
    takes a position away from another individual in the same or similar
    group from getting the necessary experience.
    
    I expect that the movement that has taken place in the last few years
    will continue and ultimately lead to this being a non-issue.  It will,
    however, be beat to death by some activists because they don't like to
    face hard facts about merit and experience.
    

    The specifics of the case for a "glass ceiling" on women's employment 
    opportunities sound strikingly familiar to the "glass ceiling" 
    on paternal child custody we also hear so much about in here.
    And both claims probably do have much merit...
    
    Glenn
    

    
    re .6
    
    The rub is that only one of those is getting much attention outside
    of these files.
    
    fred();

    Re: .3 by CSC32::HADDOCK 

    >One way that Affirmative action has really hurt women/minorities is by
    >putting unqualified people in positions for the sake of EEO.  When you
    >do that, the only thing accomplished is to confirm the negative
    >stereotypes.

    Fred, I think this is wrong, and more than that, I think it is
    poisonous (that toxic work environment George mentions).

    Before AA, there were incompetents in positions of responsibility.
    White, male morons. And when you ran into one, you asked yourself
    something like, "I wonder whose nephew he is?"

    No one should be surprised that minorities have their share of
    incompetents. But as a feminist once said (I paraphrase), "Equality is
    not reached when a female Einstein is treated the same as a male
    Einstein; it is reached when a female schlemiel is treated the same as
    a male schlemiel."

    The problem is not that minorities are being given chances that they
    never had before. The problem is that there seems to be no mechanism to
    get rid of incompetents. I think that is generally true in corporate
    America, including this company. 

    So what is confirmed by the existence minority incompetents -- and of
    course there are some -- is not "negative stereotypes." It's prejudice.
    And if there was a reliable way to get rid of _all_ incompetents, the
    issue would never come up.

    JP
    

    
    EEO means just that...not necessarily that someone with fewer
    credentials gets chosen over a more likely candidate just because they
    happen to be a minority.  Institutions such as AA were formed to curb
    the lopsided monopolization of corporate positions by white males.
     

    
     re .8

>    Before AA, there were incompetents in positions of responsibility.
>    White, male morons. And when you ran into one, you asked yourself
>    something like, "I wonder whose nephew he is?"

    Which only goes to prove my point.  We've all seen positions obviously
    filled, not by the best qualified, but to fill some quota.  If they
    say this about "White, male morons",  to you think that they will
    think any more of a minority.

    Jackie Robinson was chosen to break the "color barrier" in baseball
    because he was recognized to be the best black baseball player 
    around.  Others followed, not only baseball but other professional
    and college sports, because _he_ _was_ good, not because of some 
    government quota.  What do you think would have happened to baseball 
    and black players, and ultimately black coaches and managers, if 
    Jackie Robinson had been a flop?
    
    fred();

    Good one.... White Male Morons... WMM?:) A new buzz word for
    Neaderthals?

    
    >Jackie Robinson was chosen to break the "color barrier" in baseball
    >because he was recognized to be the best black baseball player 
    >around.  Others followed, not only baseball but other professional
    >and college sports, because _he_ _was_ good, not because of some 
    >government quota.  What do you think would have happened to baseball 
    >and black players, and ultimately black coaches and managers, if 
    >Jackie Robinson had been a flop?
    
    I have no argument with your point here. But the color barrier in
    baseball, and similar barriers in business, _have_ been broken. And it
    is unreasonable to hold minorities to a higher standard today, even if
    it did make sense that the first person to attempt to break the
    baseball color barrier had to be a superstar.
    
    Positions have _never_ been filled purely on the basis of the best
    qualified applicant. That minorities want to get in on the action does
    not surprise me. Does it surprise you?
    
    Again, my main point was that we'd all be better off if we solved the
    problem of removing incompetents, rather than trying to solve the
    problem of determining what "best qualified" means. That trick hasn't
    worked yet.
    
    JP
    
    

    re .12
    
    Yes, get rid of the morons ect.  But lets not have the gov't tell
    businesses that they have to have so many of this or that to fill
    quotas, this is just plain wrong period.  If a person can prove that
    they have not been chosen because of race or gender, then let the laws
    come down like a big hammer.  When a person is refused or not
    considered for a job because they don't fit the criteria of the quota 
    system, that is simple and outragious discrimination period.  There
    are alot of white males that don't get any opportunity for high level
    jobs because there are simply not enough of these jobs to go around.  
    There is a very high percentage of white males that are poor or are in low
    level paying jobs today and have been in the past.  Who stands up for
    these millions of white males, nobody.  But who gets blamed for all of 
    the ill's on this planet, the white males.  What we really have here is 
    four classes of people 1) very rich, 2) rich,  3) middle income living
    by paycheck to paycheck and 4) the poor living day to day.  If you
    listen to the news, there are all kinds of violence, white collar
    crimes ect.  The white collar crimes are basically the rich crooks and
    the violence is either organized crime or the frustrated middle class
    and poor who struggle every day both men and women of all races.  As a 
    white male, I don't see myself having anymore advantages, just more
    restrictions stemming from the laws and society in general.  I am being
    taxed to death to support alot of these special group interest programs
    and special programs for the rich.  I listed to Dole last night and if
    he wins and follows through on his campain promises, things could
    change for the better IMHO.
    earth

    
    Dom,
    
    Yeah, the vast majority of white males, along with minorities, are all
    looking for a piece of the action. But if you think your chances are
    slim, how do you think it looks to minorities? The percentages are
    there for you to read -- you do the math.
    
    Now ask yourself who benefits by keeping all the people described in my
    first paragraph angry at each other. Then ask yourself who puts most of
    the money into Bob Dole's campaign. I'll bet there's a lot of overlap
    in those answers, but what do I know.
    
    Peace,
    
    JP

    
    rep .12

>    I have no argument with your point here. But the color barrier in
>    baseball, and similar barriers in business, _have_ been broken. And it
>    is unreasonable to hold minorities to a higher standard today, even if
>    it did make sense that the first person to attempt to break the
>    baseball color barrier had to be a superstar.

    But is it not reasonable to hold them to an _equal_ standard.  The
    point was that the color barrier was broken because owners recognized
    that they were limiting their choice of talent, not because there
    was some kind of quota.  If we applied quota systems to pro sports
    today, there would be _fewer_ minorities in pro sports.  So which
    is better in the long run--qualified individuals setting a good 
    example for employers and others, or some government quota.

>    Positions have _never_ been filled purely on the basis of the best
>    qualified applicant. That minorities want to get in on the action does
>    not surprise me. Does it surprise you?

    _Never_ is a gross exaggeration.  Lots of white guys get hired every
    day.  Why this white guy instead of that white guy or that woman or
    that minority in the face of quotas?  The manager who hired me into 
    Digital was a minority.  It was a woman that worked for Digital that 
    I didn't even know who spotted me in a college class we had together 
    and asked me for a copy of my resume.  Boy, I guess us ol' white boys 
    _really_ are admired if even the minorities and women will 
    "discriminate" in our favor.

>    Again, my main point was that we'd all be better off if we solved the
>    problem of removing incompetents, rather than trying to solve the
>    problem of determining what "best qualified" means. That trick hasn't
>    worked yet.

    Isn't determining "incompetent" simply the opposite side of the coin
    to determining "best qualified"?  However, I can't disagree about
    getting rid of incompetents (no matter what race, color, creed, sex
    etc) I've already pointed out how incompetents hurt us all.

    fred();

    
    re .14

    >But if you think your chances are
    >    slim, how do you think it looks to minorities?

    White males under age 40 are the _only_ group in the U.S that have
    _no_ government program or protection.  Methinks you are still 
    trying to fight the battles of the 50's.  How do you go about
    changing attitudes and prejudices.  Certainly not by forcing
    incompetents down people's throats with some government quota in 
    the name of "equality".  Because "equality" then becomes just 
    another 1990's double-speak.

    fred();

> White males under age 40 are the _only_ group in the U.S that have
> _no_ government program or protection.

  No, just the House, the Senate, the Presidency, 2/3 of the
  Supreme Court Justices, most of the Cabinet, etc. etc.

  NO government program or protection at all.

  None.

  Nada.

  Zip.

                                   Atlant

    
    I've got to run off for a week at ObjectWorld, so I'll have to pick up
    this thread after next week. Just a couple of quick points:
    
    I _am_ suggesting we hold minorities to an equal standard. Morons will
    always be with us. Whites shouldn't attribute minority morons
    exclusively to AA and minorities should attribute WM morons exclusively
    to the old-boy network.
    
    >_Never_ is a gross exaggeration.  
    
    My actual statement included the word "purely," and I stand by it. And
    I would argue that no one would want a situation where "best qualified"
    was the only criteria (assuming we could agree on the criteria, which
    seems unlikely to me). Haven't you ever had a hiring manager take a
    chance on you? I sure have. It worked out well for all concerned,
    but there you have it.
    
    So I want a hiring manager to be able to excercise judgement, but I can
    understand minorities' viewpoint too. They've noticed that in the
    exercise of that judgement, they get the short end of the stick a
    disproportionate amount of the time.
    
    That brings me the final point of your .15. No, I don't think "best
    qualified" is the other side of the "incompetent" issue. At least not
    exactly. The former involves a crystal ball while the latter involves
    a relatively simple examination of past performance. Accent on
    "relatively." 
    
    Yeah, quotas are unfair. I just don't know of a better way to jump
    start the process that _has_ to be started. My own preferences would be
    quotas that come with a "sunset" provision.
    
    Later,
    
    JP
    
    
    

    .14
    
    Just what are you getting at in the second paragraph of this note?  If
    it's an attempt to paint Bob Dole or Republicans as racists, sexists,
    etc then you are dead wrong.  I believe Bob Dole said it best and what
    we truly need to do as a country.  We need and must do everything
    possible to guarantee opportunity, but should not get involved in
    results.  As long as we provide equal opportunity then let results be
    determinedby each individual's drive, motivation and talent.
    

    RE .17
    
   >> White males under age 40 are the _only_ group in the U.S that have
   >> _no_ government program or protection.
    
   >   No, just the House, the Senate, the Presidency, 2/3 of the
   >   Supreme Court Justices, most of the Cabinet, etc. etc.
    
    care to expand on this? 

    His blindness made him see _over_ 40 as _under_ 40...   8-)

> >> White males under age 40 are the _only_ group in the U.S that have
> >> _no_ government program or protection.
>
>  >   No, just the House, the Senate, the Presidency, 2/3 of the
>  >   Supreme Court Justices, most of the Cabinet, etc. etc.
>
>   care to expand on this? 

  No, it's self-evident. And the over-40/under-40 thing is just a
  red herring that I don't need to chase either. The under-40
  White Christian Male crowd is being pretty well served by the
  groups I mentioned.

  How old is Ralph Reed, BTW?

                                    Atlant

    .22
    
    Please idenify by name, the programs that have been put in place by the
    folks you identified.  Just what program and which agency is there to
    insure fair treatment of under 40 white males.  Just which laws have
    been enacted to support those agencies, programs??
    
    Your personal prejudice is showing.  Or perhaps you just have no idea
    what your talking about.  I tend to think it's both based on some of
    your previous entries.
    

> Please identify by name:

  You just like to "the hoop game". "JUmp through this hoop!"
  "Here, now jump through THIS hoop!"

  *YOU* identify them. Or, to make your work *MUCH* easier, why
  not identify those programs by Federal, State, and Local governments
  that *DON'T* benefit the established order (that is, White Males).

                                       Atlant

        re .24

    >*YOU* identify them.

    _You_ made the claim.  Can you name _one_ law or program implemented
    specifically to benefit white males?  Can you name one case of a
    white male winning a discrimination case?  You can't because it hasn't
    happened.  The only law that protects white males is age discrimination
    if you are over forty.  Which only goes to prove, once more, that just 
    because you can punch something into a computer file doesn't necessarily 
    make it true.

    fred();

    .24
    
    Why should I waste my time on a claim that you made.  I asked you to
    support your biased statement, obviously you are unable to support it,
    or you have jumped on it with both feet.
    
    Just for your edificatio, look to the Federal and State set-aside
    programs for every group but white males.  Look at the AA laws and
    programs.  They address every group but white males.
    
    You are wrong, plain and simple.  If you think that discrimination
    against white males is OK, then just state it as a personal prejudice
    and leave it at that.  Don't waste your time, nor insult our
    intelligence, by trying to justify a blatantly erroneou position.
    s

Fred:

  Here's a nickel: Buy a clue.

  Start with: "What cohort benefited from the GI Bill?"

  Debating with you is futile as you seem to even refuse to
  think about situations that conflict with your poor, "Woe
  is me, I'm a victim" philosophy.

                                   Atlant

  Lest I be accused of not having stated this explicitly enough,
  or simply enough, let me be completely explicit:

    GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT BENEFIT WHITE GUYS DON'T NEED TO
    BE LABELED AS SUCH. THEY SIMPLY NEED TO BE CRAFTED IN SUCH
    A WAY AS TO HIT THOSE AREAS MAXIMALLY OCCUPIED BY WHITE GUYS.


  The GI Bill was an example. Once the Armed Forces started looking
  like America instead of like a meeting of New Hampshire sportsmen,
  the GI Bill went away.

  Tax law often benefits rich white guys 'cause that's who runs
  *ALL* of the Fortune 500. (We've already proven that fact, BTW.)

  Tobacco subsidies probably benefit white guys as, in fact, do
  most farm subsidies. They certainly don't trickle down to the
  minorities in the inner cities or the United Farm Workers.

  I'm sure there are other examples. But if you go looking for
  bills labeled "GOVERNMENT AID FOR WHITE GUYS", you won't find any.
  White guys are too smart to let their sugar plums be that easily
  discovered.

  Insetad, they're labeled things like "Reaganomics" and "Bob Dole's
  new tax plan".
                                   Atlant

    
    re .27
    >  Start with: "What cohort benefited from the GI Bill?"

    I don't thing the GI Bill was crafted exclusively to benefit white
    guys.  Nor have white guys (or even just guys for that matter) 
    been the sole beneficiary of the GI bill.  Try again.

    BTW.  The "cohort" that benefited from the GI bill was mainly the
    one that saved our sorry (*&^s from Nazis, and came back, many times,
    if at all, with pieces of them missing.  I don't call that a "benefits"
    program--just a small repayment.

    fred();

    re .28

    You convenitnely left out the part where I said _specifically_ to
    benefit....
    
    And just as the GI Bill, white guys are not the sole beneficiaries
    of these programs, so  name me one of those programs that says "you 
    must hire xx% white guys", or a "a white guy can sue you for firing 
    him for xxx".  Age discrimination for over 40 is the _only_ thing.

    fred();

    .28
    
    You are still clueless but that axe your grinding is beginnig to get
    quite small.
    
    What you claim are the wonderful programs designed for the benefit of
    "white guys" are open to all people.  Your poor attempt with the GI
    Bill is just one of them.  Any GI was eligible, man, woman, minority of
    any sort, as well as "white guys".
    
    Every other program you mentioned, beside being depressionera
    legislation, was open to every citizen of this country and citizens of
    every stripe was included.
    
    Youstill can not support your basic premise and keep providing
    additional evidence that the bias and prejudice running lose in this
    country is A-Ok as long as you direct it to "white guys".
    

    
>    GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT BENEFIT WHITE GUYS DON'T NEED TO
>    BE LABELED AS SUCH. THEY SIMPLY NEED TO BE CRAFTED IN SUCH
>    A WAY AS TO HIT THOSE AREAS MAXIMALLY OCCUPIED BY WHITE GUYS.
>
>
>  The GI Bill was an example. Once the Armed Forces started looking
>  like America instead of like a meeting of New Hampshire sportsmen,
>  the GI Bill went away.

    One common historical complaint is that the military has historically
    been *over-represented* by minorities and therefore exposing those
    groups to higher risk than the white majority.

    Now that we've shifted from risk during war (too few whites) to
    benefits to war vets I learn that actually there were
    disproportionately too many whites so the benefits are going mostly to
    whites.

    Can't have it both ways, I don't doubt one of the two complaints is
    true but can't have both of them.  It just can't be.  

    Greg

    BTW - discrimination 50 years ago has little to do with 1996 and how my 22
    nephews and nieces should be treated as they enter the work force.   
                                                 
                         

	re .10

Fred,

	Jackie Robinson was not the best black baseball player.  He was far
	from being the best in the "Negro league".  Jackie Robinson was chosen
	because they felt he could handle the abuse a black man would receive.
	And he did.

	As a matter of fact the Boston Red Sox and the NY Yankees were forced
	to put black men on their teams by the baseball commissioner.  Guess
	what the Sox and the Yanks did.  They _ DELIBERATELY _ chose the
	_ WORST _ two black players THEY COULD FIND for their respective teams.
	And there were hundreds better able and willing to play than the ones
	they signed up. This is _FACT_ and can be verified by many historic
	baseball books and a documentary (PBS).

	There will be failures......  Some times deliberately chosen to fail
	as the example above points out.  But so what, if someone fails,
	on there own.	Are you going to judge an entire race/gender by one
	failure?  What if Jackie was a flop?  Are you implying that the doors
	shouldn't have been opened for Hendry Arron, Sachel Page, Reggie
	Jackson, Joe Morgan, Jim Rice and many, many more because of one
	person's failure.

	Anyone can error (no pun intended) but is takes courage, understanding,
	acceptance and sacrifice to correct it.

	Peace understanding and self control.... We are all in the same boat.
	Wouldn't it be ideal if we can (opportunity) all row in the same
	direction?


	Armando

>	As a matter of fact the Boston Red Sox and the NY Yankees were forced
>	to put black men on their teams by the baseball commissioner.  Guess
>	what the Sox and the Yanks did.  They _ DELIBERATELY _ chose the
>	_ WORST _ two black players THEY COULD FIND for their respective teams.
    
    Close, but not exactly.  The Sox and Yanks were the last two teams 
    to field black players, but the Yanks' first was Elston Howard, who
    went on to become their starting catcher for several years and even
    won one MVP award.
    
    But overall, you are correct-- much like what passes for "fact" in 
    this notesfile, the integration of baseball starting with Jackie 
    Robinson (Josh Gibson, who died young after suffering from emotional 
    problems among other maladies, and others were better players) was 
    politically motivated to a great extent.  And while politics may be 
    worth debating, there's nothing definitively truthful about the 
    arguments on either side, when the sides are so far divided in 
    demagoguery. 
    
    Glenn
    

    
    re .33

>	As a matter of fact the Boston Red Sox and the NY Yankees were forced
>	to put black men on their teams by the baseball commissioner.  Guess
>	what the Sox and the Yanks did.  They _ DELIBERATELY _ chose the
>	_ WORST _ two black players THEY COULD FIND for their respective teams.

    Which, if anything, only goes to prove my point. 

>        What if Jackie was a flop?  Are you implying that the doors
>	shouldn't have been opened for Hendry Arron, Sachel Page, Reggie
>	Jackson, Joe Morgan, Jim Rice and many, many more because of one
>	person's failure.

    I'm not saying it, but there would have been those at the time that
    would have.  There were even those who said, in spite of Jackie's
    success, that it shouldn't.  If those first players had been flops
    the bigots would have gotten a lot more attention  Which only, again, 
    goes to prove my point.

    What the other owners (save two if your assertions about the Red Sox 
    and the Yanks be true) couldn't ignore was not a government program 
    (yes I know Mrs. Packard, I used a double negative ;^) ), but the fact 
    that they were limiting their talent pool and therefore their revenues.  
    Even so, it was the Baseball Commissioner, not a government program,
    that pressured the Yanks and Red Sox.

    fred();

    
    re .33

>	Jackie Robinson was not the best black baseball player.  He was far
>	from being the best in the "Negro league".  Jackie Robinson was chosen
>	because they felt he could handle the abuse a black man would receive.
>	And he did.

    And if he had been some Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton type, what then?
    What would have happened if he had been an obvious flop, then filed
    lawsuit against Baseball when he was cut?  And how much of the
    desegregation of the rest of Professional and  College sports as well
    as the desegregation of the rest of society can be attributed to Jackie
    Robinson not going around squawking about how badly he was being
    treated (although granted he _was_ treated _worse_ than the lowest of
    minorities are treated today), but that he was just plain good at what
    he did, and _showing_ the rest of society what black people can do and
    that black and white _can_ live and work together and _deserve_, not
    just mandated, to be  treated _equally_.

    fred();

    .33
    
    I think the real issue is the argument about results as opposed to
    opportunity.  I believe the majority of people will support all efforts
    to insure equal opportunity, but rebel when people talk about results.
    
    There will always be those  whoa re so blind that they will not work in
    their own best interests, but legislation will do little to change
    that.  It just makes it more vocal.
    
    Focus needs to be on making sure, as much as possible, that everyone
    gets equal treatment and opportunity.  if you don't sieze it, that's
    your problem.
    

                         
>    Even so, it was the Baseball Commissioner, not a government program,
>    that pressured the Yanks and Red Sox.
    
    That's not saying much.  As these things go, at the time, the 
    Commissioner of baseball wielded a mantle of power even more 
    odious than that of the U.S. Government. ;-)  But seriously, 
    if left to their own devices, baseball's owners may have delayed 
    integration indefinitely regardless of the economic stupidity 
    of that decision, as if they didn't delay such a move much longer
    than was defensible as it was.
    
    Sometimes society needs a jumpstart and a particular program 
    does have merit.  On the other side of the coin, casting aspersions
    at a program like the GI Bill based on a racial breakdown is also 
    ridiculous (the program was a success).  The difference comes down
    to the whose-ox-is-getting-gored distinction.  Good gov't programs,
    bad gov't programs...
    
    glenn
    
    

    
    re .38

>   That's not saying much.  As these things go, at the time, the 
>    Commissioner of baseball wielded a mantle of power even more 
>    odious than that of the U.S. Government. ;-)  But seriously, 
>    if left to their own devices, baseball's owners may have delayed 
>    integration indefinitely regardless of the economic stupidity 
>    of that decision, as if they didn't delay such a move much longer
>    than was defensible as it was.
 
    Even so, Baseball was desegregated long before Affirmative Action
    and EEO were a gleam in some Federal judge's eye.  Desegregation
    was implemented because enough nasty ol' white guys finally came
    to see the fallacy, and baseball and Jackie Robinson were more
    than a little instrumental in demonstrating that fallacy.

    fred();

Re several:

  "Minorities over-represented in the military"...

  I'm not sure this was true in WW2 or even Korea. But the simple
  fact of the matter is that whether or not they were over-represented
  based on their percentage of the general population, they were still
  a small minority of the military. And the programs that benefited the
  ex-GI were therefore programs that benefited white guys most of all.

  By the way, based on my dad's slides of his unit of the Army Air
  Force, you'd have a difficult time proving that minorities *EX-
  ISTED* in the military, let alone were over-represented. I realize
  that this one data point is of little statistical significance.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Affirmative Action...

  Someone ought to post the enabling legislation. Somehow, I'll
  bet it applies to leveling the cohort representations in all
  jobs and from all categories. The reason that you perceive it
  as not applying to white guys is that white guys are already
  way-over-represented in all the good, high-pay, high-status
  jobs and the places they're under-represented (shoveling s**t,
  for example, or doing jobs that are perceived as "women's
  work", they don't want to go. So they don't see AA as applying
  to them, too.
                                    Atlant

> By the way, based on my dad's slides of his unit of the Army Air
> Force, you'd have a difficult time proving that minorities *EX-
> ISTED* in the military, let alone were over-represented. I realize
> that this one data point is of little statistical significance.

  WAIT! Stop the presses!

  I remember now

  There was that *ONE* unit of Black flyers! They were in the news
  just this past year!

  Imagine that!

  One whole unit of Black guys flying fighter planes!

                                    Atlant

re. 34


    > Close, but not exactly.  The Sox and Yanks were the last two teams
    > to field black players, but the Yanks' first was Elston Howard, who
    > went on to become their starting catcher for several years and even
    > won one MVP award.

 Thanks for the correction.  I don't have a reference here.  However, it
 is believed that the Yanks could have picked a much better player out of
 many better players.


	re .35

	Fred,

		Everything proves your point... :^) And sometime I see
		it other times I do not.


   > I'm not saying it, but there would have been those at the time that
   > would have.  There were even those who said, in spite of Jackie's
   > success, that it shouldn't.  If those first players had been flops
   > the bigots would have gotten a lot more attention  Which only, again,
   > goes to prove my point. 

 Fred, even today, there are does who say, in spite of women/minorities
 success, that it shouldn't.  I'm glad to understand that you and I are
 not one of them.  Let's not give those flops the attention.  This
 probably proves your point again. ;^)

   > What the other owners (save two if your assertions about the Red Sox
   > and the Yanks be true) couldn't ignore was not a government program
   > (yes I know Mrs. Packard, I used a double negative ;^) ), but the fact
   > that they were limiting their talent pool and therefore their revenues.
   > Even so, it was the Baseball Commissioner, not a government program,
   > that pressured the Yanks and Red Sox.

 Prejudges business/people needed a push every once in a while.  But,
 in any kind of a broad sweeping push there will be those that don't deserve
 it.  I am sure Jackie Robinson took the place (pushed out) of someone else
 who I'm sure we can agree wasn't happy about it. And the person probably
 believed he was/is better than Jackie Robinson.  Most likely not but who
 knows.  Yup, this also proves your point.  :)

 All of us must play by the rules under our government even if a few of us
 don't like it.  We could vote everyone out of office, change laws.  What
 then?  My hope is that we are temporary sidetracked in order to correct
 things, we sacrifice, not always by our own choice, but with the hope that
 we can get back on track ASAP......Then we can truly have opportunity for
 all.  If you want a position show/prove that you are a better man/woman.
 We are not there yet.  We are still sacrificing. Why?  Story in the 11:30
 NEWS:

	Just a few years back it was _PROVED_ that _ALL_ the banks in Boston
	were _RED LINING_.  Can you believe that it was against good business?
	It was proved that the neighborhoods being Redlined had a much better
	record of not defaulting and paying mortgages on time.  For the ones
	that did get loans....it was proved that contractor were dealing with
	the bank to finance home repair at interest rates above 23% while
	other neighborhood's interest rates were in the low teens.

	Not to long ago  many major employment agencies in NY along with
	major employers were using secret code (All American etc.,) to hire
	only a certain group of people, all other need not apply.

	In Boston HUD (a government agency) was putting aside the best 
	government housing projects to a select race group. All other
	need not apply.

 So we sacrifice:
		
	For the Redline case it was proved that it was not money or good
	business it was race that was the determining factor in loans. We
	sacrifice because the banks are being/have been sued..... We the
	innocent ones pay a higher mortgage rate...

	Secret code to hire only a certain race? Did they forgot to pick who is
	best qualified.?..?. Our sacrifice as a result, quotas.  I know this
	isn't the case that brought quotas but I'm sure you know what is
	meant.  Please let me know if you don't.

	The HUD case.  What is our sacrifice?  Innocent People who may have
	had legitimate cases for the use of the housing will now not get
	them.  Remember busing....Remember all the innocent boys and girls...

Government programs or baseball commissioners?  I wish it was only at the
baseball commissioners level.  But the problem is _MUCH_ bigger than that.
The problem is in private and public arenas..... HUD, banking, schools, baseball
military on and on and on. And just when you think we have fixed the problem
we hear..........story at 11:30.  Yup, it proves your point. 

When the government and private industry discriminates we pay in $$$$ and jobs.
The sooner we can remove the prejudges the sooner we can stop sacrificing
and get back on track.  Otherwise innocent people like Fred and I will be
forced to sacrifice.

    >And if he had been some Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton type, what then?
    >What would have happened if he had been an obvious flop, then filed
    >lawsuit against Baseball when he was cut?  And how much of the
    >desegregation of the rest of Professional and  College sports as well
    >as the desegregation of the rest of society can be attributed to Jackie
    >Robinson not going around squawking about how badly he was being
    >treated (although granted he _was_ treated _worse_ than the lowest of
    >minorities are treated today), but that he was just plain good at what
    >he did, and _showing_ the rest of society what black people can do and
    >that black and white _can_ live and work together and _deserve_, not
    >just mandated, to be  treated _equally_.

re. 36

Fred,

	Are you saying in the above that when people see something
	legitimately unjust they shouldn't complain (squawk)? I hope not,
	because I have a lot of respect for your strong desire to
	have justice and squawk until you get it.   I'm sure I've read
	what you wrote wrong. Sorry.


re. 37

    >There will always be those  whoa re so blind that they will not work in
    >their own best interests, but legislation will do little to change
    >that.  It just makes it more vocal.

	It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil...... This is definitely
							proving Fred's point!

    >Focus needs to be on making sure, as much as possible, that everyone
    >gets equal treatment and opportunity.  if you don't sieze it, that's
    >your problem

	^ EXCELLENT
	

 re. .38

    >That's not saying much.  As these things go, at the time, the
    >Commissioner of baseball wielded a mantle of power even more
    >odious than that of the U.S. Government. ;-)  But seriously,
    >if left to their own devices, baseball's owners may have delayed
    >integration indefinitely regardless of the economic stupidity
    >of that decision, as if they didn't delay such a move much longer
    >than was defensible as it was.


 Correct me if I'm wrong. The Commissioner still has POWER there are
 laws that protect the Major League against competition. There is no
 other industry that I can think of where the leader has so much power.

 It is not about money. As Rocush, implied, there are those so blind that
 they will not work in their own interests.  See the Redlining example
 above also.  It is about gender/race.

	It is against men in child custody.
	It is against women/minorities in the corporate world.

 I'll just leave you with those two since they have been dominating this
 conference for a long time now.  Good night everyone.  I hope I didn't
 write anything offensive to anyone.  If I did please let me know. And realize
 it was not intentional.  Thanks.


 Armando
	

    re .40 & .41
    
    I wonder if, depending on your Dad's age, that he was in the Army
    back when it was still segregated, thus the photo of white faces...
    
    Sue

>  I'm not sure this was true in WW2 or even Korea. But the simple
>  fact of the matter is that whether or not they were over-represented
>  based on their percentage of the general population, they were still
>  a small minority of the military. And the programs that benefited the
>  ex-GI were therefore programs that benefited white guys most of all.
    
    I think there's an error in logic here.  Proportion of representation 
    must be considered in the equation of "who benefits" (if we're really 
    _that_ concerned about who gets what).  Otherwise almost all government 
    programs benefit "white guys" most of all simply because, by definition, 
    a minority is a minority, i.e. one from a segment that represents 
    significantly less than 50% of the population.  That the minority 
    group would ever receive greater than 50% of all benefits from a
    given program (welfare assistance, job training, low-income tax cut 
    etc.) would be quite extraordinary indeed.
    
    By your standard above, federal welfare assistance benefits whites
    most of all.  But I'm sure you'd be the first to challenge a 
    statement from any conservative who'd have the gall to claim that 
    the recent overhaul of welfare actually discriminates against whites 
    (relative to the status quo), because obviously that's not the case 
    when relation to the overall population is considered.
    
    Glenn
       

Sue:

> I wonder if, depending on your Dad's age, that he was in the Army
> back when it was still segregated, thus the photo of white faces...

  I have no doubt it was still segregated in general. But in the
  Army Air Force, it's just that there were essentially no Blacks
  save the Tuskegee Airmen�. It was segregated to the extent that
  "No colored need apply".
                                   Atlant


� I remembered the name of that *ONE* unit of Black fighter pilots.

>>  I have no doubt it was still segregated in general. But in the
>>  Army Air Force, it's just that there were essentially no Blacks
>>  save the Tuskegee Airmen�. It was segregated to the extent that


    Hmmm...let's see...Tuskegee Airmen...World War II....  I am not
surprised that there was segregation and discrimination at that point -
it would be another 20 years before the Civil Rights Act was passed!

> Hmmm...let's see...Tuskegee Airmen...World War II....  I am not
> surprised that there was segregation and discrimination at that point -
> it would be another 20 years before the Civil Rights Act was passed!

  And your point is?

  (Remember, we're discussing the sub-topic of whether the GI Bill
  had the effect of mostly benefiting White Guys.)

                                   Atlant

    I wish I still had The Parade Magazine from the Sunday Boston Globe
    2 or 3 weeks ago.  Their cover story was on the G.I. Bill and some
    of the opportunities it gave people, where those people are today,
    and the contributions they've made to society.
    
    Sue 

    I originally was going to respond, once again, to the errors in the
    contention the GI Bill was designed to benefit white guys, but a
    completely different thought has side tracked me.
    
    In a strictly Constitutional sense, why is a person not able to
    discriminate if they so chose to?  If I chose to sell my home to one
    group of people as opposed to another, and so instruct my realtor, why
    should that be illegal.  It is my home, my property, and I should have
    the ability to sell or not sell to whomever I so chose.
    
    The same goes to business.  If I own my own company, I should be free
    to hire and fire whoever I so chose.  It is my business and the
    government should have no say in how that busieness is run.  If, based
    on my experience, I believe the best workers are Italians, why should I
    not be able to restrict my hiring practices to just Italians?  This is
    more likely than not stupid on my part to restrict my labor pool so
    severly, but why should the government have the right to interfere in
    my business.
    
    The same can be extended to accomdations.  If I don't want to rent a
    room to someone, it's my rental, not the government's.  I may be losing
    business because of my decision, but it's my choice, why should the
    government have any say in what I do with my business.
    
    This seems to be the right thing to do maorally and I agree, generally,
    with the laws in place, but they do seem to be an improper and
    unethical intrusion of the government into what is basically, a
    personal decision.
    

   WOW!!! Isn't,    _"it's the right think to do"_,    good enough.

			What have our society come to? :^(


   Once, you, they and I, conclude that it was wrong, shouldn't we correct it?  

	

 OH, Let's see....   if it can be explained using purely a business/family
 prospective.


	When you start a business and make a profit you have an invisible
	partner.  Every quarter you give your partner a share or the profit.
	Right?

	Your partner's name is "Uncle Sam" and his share is the tax you
	pay. Right?  But, many people wonder why Uncle Sam, should get
	anything at all.  They don't see Uncle Sam, as a partner. Do you?
	People say, "Uncle Sam, didn't do anything to deserve a piece of
	the action".  Right?   WRONG.  

	Your partner's job is to create an environment that allows your
	business to flourish. Uncle Sam, protects your little firm from being
	crushed by Microsoft with unfair business practices (internal evil).
	And protect you from external evils (Japanese companies dumping
	semiconductors on our soil).  Because of the protection and the
	favorable environment provided, you will make a larger profit.
	Your partner will expect his share.  Can you think of a better
	Uncle Sam in any country?  Don't think so....

	You have an interest in finding the
	best worker for your company.  The more efficient your employees are
	the more money you make. Right?  Your partner has the same interest
	in mind. If your partner does anything to reduce your efficiency you
	will fight it from here to hell, or at least in the courts. Right?
	If you do anything to reduce the efficiency, your partner will fight
	also.  Most likely in court.  We conclude that both of you have an
	obligation to each other. Right?

	Before the quota argument enters our heads again, please read on....

	Why should the government force you to employ people you may not
	want because they are black, white, yellow, wears a dress, Or whatever? 
	Well you see; Uncle Sam, has other businesses on the side.  You
	don't think that your taxes alone is enough to runs this country.
	You did?

	Uncle Sam, has an equal (IDEALLY), interest in seeing all of it's 
	other partner succeed too.  Right? As a matter of fact your partner
	wants all of his TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION other partners to
	succeed.  Hey, it costs a lot to run a country.

	It is in your partners best interest to ask/coerce/force, you to
	employ the best man/woman for the job.  And you wouldn't demand
	anything less from him.  Would you?  Your profits are at stake....
	feeding your son (next Hank Arron), your precious baby girl (next
	Noble Prize winner)...so you wouldn't demand anything less from
	Uncle Sam.....

	Uncle Sam, has a family too.  All TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION of
	us. He will protect the weakest of his partner/family from being
	taken advantage of by the strongest. That is his job! Just like you
	would protect the weakest in your family with all your might.
	Who wouldn't?

	Unfortunately, Uncle Sam, is BIG and slooooow. Except during times
	to collect taxes. :^)   It is very slow in seeing groups of people
	unfairly literally and figuratively being crushed.......
	Think of the Jews is the Big One, think of the native American,
	blacks in the South hung from a tall tree because they are blacks,
	James Town..... 

	However, sooner or later he
	will rise to protect his children/partner as you would also!  No?
	He will fine, jail and even Kill to protect his interest/family
	(Gulf War). Would you? Unfortunately lots of INNOCENT people will
	be hurt in the process, inefficiencies will grow, moneys will be
	divert all toward the "it's the right thing to do" and the hell
	with making a percent or two more profit. Lives, livelihoods
	freedom and the American way, MUST be protected at all costs.
	"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for
	your country." (JFK).

	Many innocent people may not want to sacrifice because they
	were not involved.  Many refused to sacrifice by dodging the draft.
	Do we call the draft dodgers cowards? Clinton? Kemp?  Maybe we do.
	What is the difference? 

	Well ultimately everyone sacrifices.  see note .42
	
	We are the Government in our own tiny world..........and often
	include only those that are like us in anything that is beneficial.

	Uncle Sam, doesn't have a choice he must govern over a huge
	diversity and create an environment that everyone can have
	equal opportunities.....Computer companies, banks and landlords
	must think more like Uncle Sam.  And hopefully do a better job by 
	acting faster to correct inequities and lessen the need for the
	innocent to sacrifice.

	Armando

    There were many units that were ALL BLACK in WW2 and they were not just
    shoveling S*!
    
    Many of the truck drivers were black. Many of the DUKW drivers/sailors
    were black. We had about 200,000 trucks in Europe, you figure it out.
    And there were co drivers, mechanics quartermasters personel etc.
    
    So by Alant's defination, they did not/could not benifit from the GI
    bill...
    
    
    open your eyes
    Steve
    
    Ther rest of us are waiting for the law that specifically benefits
    white males. You can't name one because there are none. Now laws that
    specifically exclude or make it exteremly dificult for whit men, that
    is a different story. But you don't believe that!

Keith:

  You're twisting my words. Here's what I said in .40 about af-
  firmative actions vis-a-vis "less desireable" jobs. Read it
  again (I've added some emphasis on the main point):

> Affirmative Action...
> 
> Someone ought to post the enabling legislation. Somehow, I'll
> bet it applies to leveling the cohort representations in all
> jobs and from all categories. The reason that you perceive it
> as not applying to white guys is that WHITE GUYS ARE ALREADY
> WAY-OVER-REPRESENTED IN ALL THE GOOD, HIGH-PAY, HIGH-STATUS
> JOBS AND THE PLACES THEY'RE UNDER-REPRESENTED (SHOVELING S**T,
> FOR EXAMPLE, OR DOING JOBS THAT ARE PERCEIVED AS "WOMEN'S
> WORK", THEY DON'T WANT TO GO. SO THEY DON'T SEE AA AS APPLYING
> TO THEM, TOO.


  Also, you're still missing the point I made way back in .28,
  even though I put it in all capitals. Read it again, too:

> GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT BENEFIT WHITE GUYS DON'T NEED TO
> BE LABELED AS SUCH. THEY SIMPLY NEED TO BE CRAFTED IN SUCH
> A WAY AS TO HIT THOSE AREAS MAXIMALLY OCCUPIED BY WHITE GUYS.
> 
>   :
> 
> I'm sure there are other examples. But if you go looking for
> bills labeled "GOVERNMENT AID FOR WHITE GUYS", you won't find any.
> White guys are too smart to let their sugar plums be that easily
> discovered.


  If you'd like to respond to these words that I actually
  wrote (as compared to some words/ideas you're trying to
  lead people to believe I wrote), then feel free.

                                   Atlant

    .50
    
    Very interesting analogy, but I do not view the Federal government as
    part of my family nor as my partner in any endeavor.  I pay taxes so as
    to insure the safety and freedom of this country.  Anything beyond that
    is certainly subject to debate as a proper role of the federal
    government.
    
    Additionally, the governemnt is in no position to ever make a
    mico-eceonmic decision regarding what is the best way to run a business
    or family.  We have reached the mess we're in because too many people
    thought the government actually could.  they can't, never could, never
    will.
    
    Again, understand that I agree with the basic morality of many of our
    laws, I question, however, whether the federal government actually has
    any right to actually enforce these laws.  I seems to me that the
    government is without any legal position to actually pass and enforce
    the laws that restrict property decisions.
    

    .52
    
    You make a basic error of logic in your contention.  You assume that
    because a certain result has occured that a certain action must have
    preceded it.  This is certainly not the fact.
    
    Because there were "No Irish need apply" signs on many businesses early
    in this century, it doesn't mean that some other group was
    automatically the benficiary of this.  To hold that because some group
    was discriminated against justifies the random discrimination against
    another group is faulty on it's surface without a lot of further
    analysis required.
    
    Claims to the contrary that someone else must have unfairly benefited
    simply because..., is unsupportable and without merit in the specific.
     

    My father served in World War II (then later, he served in Korea
    and Vietnam.)
    
    My father told me that when the military was segregated, white officers
    *AND* enlisted men were told that THEY DID NOT HAVE TO SALUTE HIGHER-
    RANKING BLACK OFFICERS.
    
    In other words, the black military personnel were allowed to risk
    their lives (and die) in U.S. wars prior to the integration of the
    military, but white military personnel were not required to regard
    them as having actual rank in the way white military personnel had it.

    .52
    
    Because your parents probably voted for FDR et. al., do you apologise
    to all Japanese people you meet beacuse your pres, Truman dropped the
    A-bomb on them? Your parents were guilty of this (my parents were
    Republicans  8-)  ) election of the person who did this, so you by
    default are guilty for the action that resulted. AA is the same thing!
    The sins of the parents being placed upon the sons
    
    Tell me what my two sons are guilty of in this AA matter? And
    furthermore, if you cannot tell me their names, then you are judging
    them as a group, not because of their abilities. It is called
    discrimination!  Call it anything you want, dress it up, but my sons
    are no more guilty of anything than you are of nuking Japan!
    
    Steve

  "There you go again." (TM)  Trying to use that "logic" that
  you claim others don't understand.


> Because there were "No Irish need apply" signs on many
> businesses early in this century, it doesn't mean that
> some other group was automatically the benficiary of this.

  Of course it does. Non-Irish benefit.


                                   Atlant

Strawman/false-logic alert:

> Because your parents probably voted for FDR et. al., do you apologise
> to all Japanese people you meet beacuse your pres, Truman dropped the
> A-bomb on them? Your parents were guilty of this (my parents were
> Republicans  8-)  ) election of the person who did this, so you by
> default are guilty for the action that resulted. AA is the same thing!
> The sins of the parents being placed upon the sons

  That paragraph assumes that Republicans were *NOT* in favor
  of dropping the bomb. That is quite unlikely to be true. So
  it's a safe bet that you're just as guilty as you're trying
  to make Suzanne (and me) out to be.

                                   Atlant

Steve:

> Tell me what my two sons are guilty of in this AA matter? And
> furthermore, if you cannot tell me their names, then you are judging
> them as a group, not because of their abilities. It is called
> discrimination!  Call it anything you want, dress it up, but my sons
> are no more guilty of anything than you are of nuking Japan!

  Your sons are not guilty of anything.

  HOWEVER...

  The calculus of the matter says that if we're ever going to
  correct a discrimanatory situation (say, changing the membership
  of a group from all A to 50/50 A/B, then at some time, we're
  going to need to either:

    o Give B preference in selection over A, or

    o Wait for a complete turnover of the membership.


  I think the people that designed the civil rights legislation
  were unwillinging to wait for the last white people hired in,
  say, 1964 to retire from the workforce before achieving
  racial balance. And as we've demonstrated before, EVEN THAT
  would not be sufficient as some of these folks would be
  racists who would perpetuate their hiring practices into
  the next generation and the next, and the next.

  If you want to achieve actual racial (or gender) balance
  in non-infinite time, you have to employ the first strategy.

                                   Atlant

> If you want to achieve actual racial (or gender) balance
> in non-infinite time, you have to employ the first strategy.

  It's too bad for you, your sons, and me that we're in the
  "transitional generation" but that's the luck of the draw.

  Of course, it's getting to the point where one's gender is
  a choice, so if you believe that women have such distinct
  advantages, you could always... :-)
  
                                   Atlant

    
    re .60
    
>  It's too bad for you, your sons, and me that we're in the
>  "transitional generation" but that's the luck of the draw.
    
    Transition _from_ what _to_ what.  There's the rub.
    
    fred();

>             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
>                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
>================================================================================
>Note 238.59               is it money or gender/race???                 59 of 60
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    34 lines  22-AUG-1996 12:24
>             -< This one's "the caluculus" rather than "logic"... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Steve:
>
>> Tell me what my two sons are guilty of in this AA matter? And
>> furthermore, if you cannot tell me their names, then you are judging
>> them as a group, not because of their abilities. It is called
>> discrimination!  Call it anything you want, dress it up, but my sons
>> are no more guilty of anything than you are of nuking Japan!
>
>  Your sons are not guilty of anything.

I appreciate that 8-)


>  HOWEVER...

I was always told that 'but' and 'however' used in the middle of a sentance
negated the 1st part, but continue


>  The calculus of the matter says that if we're ever going to
>  correct a discrimanatory situation (say, changing the membership
>  of a group from all A to 50/50 A/B, then at some time, we're
>  going to need to either:
>
>    o Give B preference in selection over A, or
>
>    o Wait for a complete turnover of the membership.
>
>
>  I think the people that designed the civil rights legislation
>  were unwillinging to wait for the last white people hired in,
>  say, 1964 to retire from the workforce before achieving
>  racial balance. And as we've demonstrated before, EVEN THAT
>  would not be sufficient as some of these folks would be
>  racists who would perpetuate their hiring practices into
>  the next generation and the next, and the next.
>
>  If you want to achieve actual racial (or gender) balance
>  in non-infinite time, you have to employ the first strategy.
>
>                                   Atlant
>
So lets use some logic here:

1.  My sons are guilty of NOTHING (your words)
2.  You want to right some past discrimination problem
3.  To achieve #2 you will discriminate against the people in #1 (luck of the
    draw)
4.  This makes you 'feel good'



Steve

    BTW
    
    So if "luck of the draw" is OK for my sons (who are guilty of nothing)
    then why isn't "luck of the draw" good for those you seek to help.
    
    The logic escapes me
    
    Steve

Steve:

  You're trying to twist my meaning again.

  Why do you do that?

  Do I not write clearly enough for you?

  Or do you believe this twisting of my meaning confers some
  debating advantage on you?


 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  MEANWHILE...

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


> So if "luck of the draw" is OK for my sons (who are guilty of nothing)
> then why isn't "luck of the draw" good for those you seek to help.

  "Luck of the draw" referred to both sets of folks, both those
  advantaged by AA and those stripp of their previous advantages
  by AA. It is the "luck of the draw" that we were all born dur-
  ing this transitional period.

  AND, OBTW, the transition is from:

    [State 1] BLATANT DISCRIMINATION BY THE WHITE GUYS

         - to -

    [State 2] A society that actually allows equal opportunity
         to all based on ability.


  But as I mentioned, if we_as_a_society don't want this transition
  to extend on exponentially (and forever), then we_as_a_society
  must impose reverse discrimination temporarily.

  I know you don't like it, but that's what it will take to get
  from [State 1] to [State 2]. And that's a mathematical fact.

                                   Atlant

  Here's something from 200 years ago.  Does any of it look familiar?
    fred();

   "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only
   exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from
   the Public Treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for
   the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with
   a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always
   followed by dictatorship.  The average age of the world's greatest
   civilizations has been 200 years.  These nations have progressed through
   the following sequence:

      From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage;
      from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to
      selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy;
      from apathy to dependency; from dependency back into bondage."

                      -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (1748 - 1813)
                   From: The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic

    RE: .62  Steve Keith

    > So lets use some logic here:

    > 1.  My sons are guilty of NOTHING (your words)

    Your daughters and your minority children (if you have daughters
    or minority children) are guilty of NOTHING, too, yet they would
    still be subject to the discrimination that still exists in our
    society no matter how you happen to feel about it.

    > 2.  You want to right some past discrimination problem

    Atlant is trying to 'right' the discrimination problems against
    women and minorities that still exist in this society (and they do 
    still exist.)

    > 3.  To achieve #2 you will discriminate against the people in #1 
    > (luck of the draw)

    As long as the problems of discrimination against women and minorities
    continue to exist, everyone pays the price for it.  Why should white
    males be exempt (when NONE of the children - white males, women of
    all races, and minority males - are guilty of anything)?

    > 4.  This makes you 'feel good'

    The problems need to be fixed.  It's suicide for our society to deny
    itself the best resources from ALL races, sexes, etc. by perpetuating
    white male domination.

    re .66
    
>    Atlant is trying to 'right' the discrimination problems against
>    women and minorities that still exist in this society (and they do 
>    still exist.)

    If equality is so important, why do we have black student unions,
    women's banks, and women's only health clubs?  Why do so many formerly
    men's only health clubs now have women's only workout areas?  Why
    are we trying so hard to "celebrate diversity"?

    fred();

    Imagine how much some would have criticized women and minority groups
    if they'd relied solely on government help to work towards equality.

    
    re .68
    
>    Imagine how much some would have criticized women and minority groups
>    if they'd relied solely on government help to work towards equality.
    
    You mean they didn't?
    
    fred();

    So, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.
    
    Catch-22.

    
    re .70

    I have no problem with equality.  However I do have some problems
    with the methods some people try justify for trying to achieve equality.
    Those methods make me wonder if _equality_ is their real goal.  
    Someone (I wish I could remember who) once said, "If you are not
    careful, the oppressed tend to become the oppressors".  I have no
    desire to be an oppressor, but I *#@&^ sure don't want to be the
    oppressed.  I was a _strong_ advocate and supporter of ERA, but
    probably for reasons that many of its other supporters would not
    have approved.

    fred();

    Equality is the goal - but it's difficult to achieve when the long-time
    dominant sex/race (the true "status quo") promotes a distrust of women
    and minorities and tries to undermine them every step of the way.

    Some other status quo members try to 'shove equality down their throats'
    with things that amount to the 'downside' of being the group in control 
    (as a way of trying to make women and minorities sorry that they ever
    asked for it in the first place.)

    The irony of this is that minorities and women have ALWAYS been fighting
    for the chance to make the big sacrifices that come with sharing the 
    human race as equal partners.  The status quo either tries to deny
    women and minorities the chances to make these sacrifices or they 
    threaten to shove them down the women's and minorities' throats (as 
    if what's being requested is really some huge punishment.)

    Where are the ones (besides Atlant and those men who agree with him)
    who simply say, "Yes, let's solve these problems so that we can all
    get on with our lives."
    
    It takes more energy and more time to fight over the solutions than
    it does to solve the problems and move on.

    
    Which brings us back to the women's-only xxxxx's and the black 
    student unions,  black frat' houses, etc.
    
    fred();

    It brings us to the reality that there are those who try to undermine
    women and minorities every step of the way.
    

    
    >   -< Let's solve the problems instead of arguing over the solutions. >-
    
    It's the solutions that make me wonder just what "problem" you are
    _really_ trying to solve.
    
    
>    It brings us to the reality that there are those who try to undermine
>    women and minorities every step of the way.
    
    or that "equality" is just another piece of 1990's doublespeak.
    
    fred();

    The real problem is the pervasiveness of the dominance of one specific
    sex and race in our society (i.e., racial and sexual inequality.)

    It is so pervasive, in fact, that the idea of African Americans meeting
    in groups while they attend college is considered threatening by some.

    (It is illegal for these groups to exclude whites, by the way, so any
    white person who wishes to attend meetings or join these unions must
    be admitted.)
    
    As long as the dominant group is allowed to damn any move that the
    minority groups try to make, equality will never be reached.
    
    (Or is this the whole point.)

    
    rep .76
    
>    (It is illegal for these groups to exclude whites, by the way, so any
>    white person who wishes to attend meetings or join these unions must
>    be admitted.)
    
    Pure balderdash.  Even if it is, it's rarely, if enver, enforced.
    What about a guy who wanted to join a women's-only health club?
    
>    As long as the dominant group is allowed to damn any move that the
>    minority groups try to make, equality will never be reached.
    
    It isn't "minorities" I see being damned.
    
>    The real problem is the pervasiveness of the dominance of one specific
>    sex and race in our society (i.e., racial and sexual inequality.)
    
    What about the places where women have had the upper hand.  ERA did
    not die because of those big bad white guys as so many would have 
    us believe.  It died because too many women found out what _they_
    would have to give up.
    
    fred();

    If any white person wants to attend a black student union meeting
    and is denied entrance, it's a simple matter of complaining to the
    school or filing a lawsuit.  The laws have to be upheld.

    Some white male professors at the University of Colorado launched
    a lawsuit claiming that they were discriminated against as white
    males, and they won it.

    A heterosexual man filed a lawsuit for being denied employment by
    a gay rights organization (and he used Boulder's laws against
    discrimination based on sexual orientation.)  He won his suit.
    The gay organization could not exclude him due to his orientation,
    so they hired him.  

    Everyone has to obey these laws.

    Women never had the 'upper hand' in deciding ERA.
    
    The Amendment had a limited amount of time to be ratified by the
    states, and guess who controls the governments of most states
    in this country.
    
    The women who were against the ERA were the ones who sided with
    the male status quo.  (These women are the darlings of the status
    quo for agreeing with many men, but they're also *blamed* for not
    wanting to make the sacrifices that the women who disagree with
    the male status quo are ready and willing to make.)

    It might interest you to know that the two most prominent men who
    have been launching the legal challenge to the laws against same-sex 
    marriages in Hawaii are heterosexual men.

    Two heterosexual men want to get married so that they can combine
    their legal assets to afford to buy the kind of house they can
    only afford together.  Although they both have girlfriends, etc.,
    they don't intend to get married to anyone else (so they want
    the advantage of being one legal entity for the purpose of being
    able to create the financial stability they could have together.)

    This challenge is probably going to be enough to make same-sex
    marriage legal in Hawaii.  (These two men are white, heterosexual
    males.)

    
    Ohter .79
    
    I remember when Coloardo could have been the final state to ratify
    ERA.  As I said I was strongly in favor.  I remember it was strong
    opposition by _women's_ groups that caused ERA to be voted down.
    Maybe not NOW, but NOW is a minority even among women's groups.
    It just gets all the press.
    
>    The women who were against the ERA were the ones who sided with
>    the male status quo.  (These women are the darlings of the status
>    quo for agreeing with many men, but they're also *blamed* for not
>    wanting to make the sacrifices that the women who disagree with
>    the male status quo are ready and willing to make.)
    
    Very telling.  As Frank Cappra(sp) found, sometimes all you have
    to do is let the other side talk.
    
    fred();

    
    re. 80
    
>    Although they both have girlfriends, etc.,
>    they don't intend to get married to anyone else (so they want
>    the advantage of being one legal entity for the purpose of being
>    able to create the financial stability they could have together.)
    
    What's that you were saying about women who would put up with stuff?
    
    fred();

    Oh, it's plenty obvious that the male status quo often takes the
    position of turning against the very women who try to support them
    and agree with them.
    
    It's one of the nastier aspects of those who believe in their own 
    racial and gender superiority.
    

    RE: .82  Fred
    
    > What's that you were saying about women who would put up with stuff?
    
    Evidently, these women aren't interested in getting married to these
    men, either.
    
    If they're all happy this way, more power to them.
    

    There was a famous German who said, "The best way to disarm your
    opponent is to accuse him first of what you are doing".
    fred();

    
    other .84

    >    If they're all happy this way, more power to them.

    Your "tolerance" seems rather selective.

    fred();

    The same (or another) famous German gained his power by demonizing
    a minority so that the so-called master race would feel as though
    they deserved to be dominant (and would keep him in power.)
                                                             

    
    re .87
    
>    The same (or another) famous German gained his power by demonizing
>    a minority so that the so-called master race would feel as though
>    they deserved to be dominant (and would keep him in power.)
    
    The German was Joseph Goebbles, and it isn't the white guys accusing
    someone else of doing what they are doing.  It isn't white guys
    doing the demonizing.  Which brings me back to just what _is_ the
    goal of these so called "equal rights" groups.
    
    fred();

    RE: .86  Fred
    
    >> If they're all happy this way, more power to them.

    > Your "tolerance" seems rather selective.
    
    Show me any family that would like to decide for themselves whether
    or not (or who) they wish to marry, and I'll say more power to them
    (as long as the individuals are in a position to make their own 
    marriage choices.)
    

    
    re .89
    
>    Show me any family that would like to decide for themselves whether
>    or not (or who) they wish to marry, and I'll say more power to them
>    (as long as the individuals are in a position to make their own 
>    marriage choices.)
    
    I was referring to your comments about the women who opposed ERA.
    
    fred();

    RE: .88  Fred
    
    > The German was Joseph Goebbles, and it isn't the white guys accusing
    > someone else of doing what they are doing.  It isn't white guys
    > doing the demonizing.  
    
    Sure it is.  It's the white guys who complain that African American
    students are allowed to meet as a group (where nearly all the
    members of the group are likely to be African American.)
    
    How many other groups on college campuses are nearly all-white?
    (Quite a few, if not most.)  
    
    > Which brings me back to just what _is_ the goal of these so called 
    > "equal rights" groups.
    
    The goal of these groups is to share responsibilities equally in
    the human race.  It doesn't happen by minority groups walking on
    eggs for the rest of their lives (afraid to use the word 'black'
    in their organization name even though so many, many, MANY groups
    exist which are all-white or nearly all-white but which don't bother
    to use the name 'white' in their groups because white is the DEFAULT
    in this society.)

    RE: .90  Fred
    
    > I was referring to your comments about the women who opposed ERA.
    
    The women who opposed the ERA were the 'darlings' of the male status
    quo.
    
    It is now the male status quo who is turning against them (blaming
    these women for going against the ERA, even though it was done as
    part of their agreement with the male status quo.)
    
    If you like women to agree with most men, don't turn on them for it
    later.  You may lose their support.

    You brought up the ERA, not me.  I got over it a long time ago.
    
    We still have problems in this country which amount to societal
    suicide.  Until we avail ourselves of all the talents and resources
    of people from all races and sexes, we still have problems which
    need to be solved (regardless of any specific obstacles we face
    along the way.)
    

    
    re  .92 etc.

>    The women who opposed the ERA were the 'darlings' of the male status
>    quo.

    Hey, it's _you_ calling them names ('darling').

>    If you like women to agree with most men, don't turn on them for it
>    later.  You may lose their support.

    I said I was in _favor_ of ERA.  And I distinctly recall that it
    wasn't just the "darlings" opposing ERA.  Mostly NOW was rather
    strangely silent during the Colorado portion of the debate when
    the Colorado vote would have put ERA over the top.

    fred();

    fred();

    The women who opposed the ERA were applauded by the male status quo,
    in case you happen to think that the term 'darlings' (for people who
    are greatly appreciated by another group) is insulting.  (I don't.)
    
    A great many other women (including NOW) fought for the ERA, whether
    you happened to hear them or not.
    

    
    re .93
    
    >    We still have problems in this country which amount to societal
>    suicide.  Until we avail ourselves of all the talents and resources
>    of people from all races and sexes, we still have problems which
>    need to be solved (regardless of any specific obstacles we face
>    along the way.)
    
    If you note my entry from Alexander Frasier Tyler a few notes back,
    the _"solution"s_ _are_ the problem.  WHEN YOU START DEPENDING ON
    GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS THE GOVERNMENT ENDS UP BEING
    YOUR PROBLEM.  
    
    fred();

    The next time you need to go somewhere, find a dirt road to get there
    (or else you are depending on the government to solve your problems.)
    
    When the people ask the government to do something, it's the people
    who are using this avenue to help solve society's problems (not the
    government.)
    

    
>    The women who opposed the ERA were applauded by the male status quo,
>    in case you happen to think that the term 'darlings' (for people who
>    are greatly appreciated by another group) is insulting.  (I don't.)
    
    Suzanne, who exactly is this big organized group the male status quo?
    
    It seems to me most government high-level positions would be among the
    most entrenched positions of the patriarcy that exist.  Then why has
    government policy for 30 years advocated results based AA programs. 
    This bashion of the male status quo is the main institution being
    attacked for it's AA stance.  
    
    For me your simple mass generalizations about groups and situations is
    so illogical and inconsistant it's not usually even worth discussing.
    
    Greg
    

    Fred, if you're so much against using the government for anything,
    why did you support Colorado's Amendment 2 (which used the state
    government to put bigger government controls on what individual 
    city governments could do about a certain issue)?
                     

    re .95
    
>    A great many other women (including NOW) fought for the ERA, whether
>    you happened to hear them or not.
    
    and as ERA got closer and closer to ratification and it was pointed
    out just how much _women_ would have to give up to achieve _equality_, 
    their voices got quieter and quieter.
    
>    The women who opposed the ERA were applauded by the male status quo,
>    in case you happen to think that the term 'darlings' (for people who
>    are greatly appreciated by another group) is insulting.  (I don't.)
    
    However, you don't seem to appreciate much that they were appreciated
    by the other group.  Otherwise, why did you mention it?
    
    fred();

    
    re .99

>    Fred, if you're so much against using the government for anything,
>    why did you support Colorado's Amendment 2 (which used the state
>    government to put bigger government controls on what individual 
>    city governments could do about a certain issue)?

    Another argument for another time and place, but the short of it is
    sometimes you have to fight fire  with fire.  I have no desire
    to see _another_ bunch of quotas shoved down people's and business's
    throats.

    fred();

    Greg, the male status quo is not a particular political party.

    It's the momentum of white males being in power in this society 
    (and it goes back hundreds of years on this continent, and thousands
    of years in Western Civilization.)

    To their credit, some long-time political leaders (as individuals
    and as members of some political ideologies) see the unfairness of 
    their positions as members of the dominant group in our society and
    they are trying to do something about it.

    Colin Powell and Christie Whitman support Affirmative Action from
    inside the Republican Party (along with some white male members
    of the Republican Party.)  It's to their credit that they do.

    The entire status quo is not a small group of leaders or politicians,
    though.  We have 250,000,000+ people in this country.  The male status
    quo has been entrenched for hundreds of years here and thousands
    of years in Western Civilization.  A few leaders can't change this
    overnight.

    
    And, as I've already pointed out, sometimes the best propaganda of
    all is to just let the other side talk.
    
    fred();

    > and as ERA got closer and closer to ratification and it was pointed
    > out just how much _women_ would have to give up to achieve _equality_, 
    > their voices got quieter and quieter.

    They were as forceful as ever.

    As I recall, the big objections were about things like same-sex
    bathrooms and women in combat.  Women's groups have been fighting
    for women to be allowed into combat for DECADES.  

    As for same-sex bathrooms, all they have to do is to create individual
    'Uni-Sex' rooms that open onto a main area (which some facilities are
    already doing.)  Not a problem.  In fact, it would give women more
    opportunities to use bathrooms in places where the women stand in
    line for long waits because the facilities are inadequate.

    > However, you don't seem to appreciate much that they were appreciated
    > by the other group.  Otherwise, why did you mention it?

    I just find it ironic that you're trashing the women who agreed with
    the male status quo about the ERA.  Nothing like turning on the women
    who agreed with most men back then.

    > And, as I've already pointed out, sometimes the best propaganda of
    > all is to just let the other side talk.
    
    If this were true, you'd never feel the need to respond.  :/
    

    Whatever happens to AA, the fight for equality will not be over.
    
    There is too much momentum for this fight (among women, minorities
    and a growing number of white men) to stop it at this late date.
    
    We will keep moving forward, even if it takes mostly the white men 
    on our side to fight against the last white men who still resist it.
    
    It's going to be a reality eventually, and we'll just keep moving
    closer to it as time goes by.
    

re .53
    
    >Very interesting analogy,

 Rocush,  I'm glad you found the analogy interesting. Did it answer your
 questions at least from one view point?

    >but I do not view the Federal government as
    >part of my family nor as my partner in any endeavor.

 You're not alone.  There are many things I don't want the Feds playing in
 also, but discrimination must be dealt with some how.  I don't have a better
 idea.  Do you? In theses cases doing nothing is _MUCH_ worse than doing
 something. I'm sure we all agree that at least there are some successes.
 And some successes are better than none.

 All the business (banks) in Boston don't think the Feds should tell them
 how to conduct their business either.  They don't want the government to
 tell them whom to loan money.  They believe that they can charge one race
 double the interest rate then take their homes if  payment isn't made
 on time.  They also, believe they can charge a different race as little
 interest as possible them be extremely lenient with late payments. In the
 same city!  Even though it was proved that it was bad business (financially).
 They didn't want the Feds as a partner either!!!!  The question is:...

 Do you want the Fed to be at least on a temporary bases the partners to
 the bank in Boston?  Should we give the banks a choice? After a good
 attempt to destroy one neighborhood financially. Which race will they go
 after next?  Maybe yours maybe mine.  Do you think Hitler's Germany was
 going to stop if they were successful with the Jews?  I don't think so.
 And if I remember correctly financial destruction was how it started.  

 There are times where the evils internally are greater than the ones
 external.  I'm sure you agree.  Wouldn't you pay your taxes to protect
 your family and business against the internal evils?   

    >I pay taxes so as
    >to insure the safety and freedom of this country.  Anything beyond that
    >is certainly subject to debate as a proper role of the federal
    >government.
    
 Don't you pay taxes to insure the safety and freedom for yourself _within_
 this country????  

    >Additionally, the government is in no position to ever make a
    >mico-eceonmic decision regarding what is the best way to run a business
    >or family.  We have reached the mess we're in because too many people
    >thought the government actually could.  they can't, never could, never
    >will.

 I agree the government is in no position to xxxxx (missing word) make a
 micro-economic decision regarding what is the best way to run a business
 or family.  But a million business doing the wrong makes a bad country.
 No? Shouldn't the government fix the country? yes, many, many innocent
 people will be hurt because Uncle Sam can't look at every micro-economy.
 The broad sweep theory.

	Do you agree, that if a foreign country attacks the US the
	government should make decisions (external evils)? I'm starting
	to sound like President Reagan. ;^}

	Do you agree, that if home invaders enters your home the
	government should make a decision?  

	Do you agree, that if Super Stop and Shop has a 99% off sale
	on only items a small corner grocery store stocks that the
	government should make a decision?  What if the small
	business fed your family?

	Do you agree, that if all/most of the people of the US decided
	to persecute you and your family or everyone of your race by not
	allowing you to make a living or even to be served in restaurant
	(in some Denny's a few year back) that the government should make
	a decision?

	It just goes to show.  If you are the victim or understand
	the victim you want help! from anywhere or anyone.  We, you and
	I, pay taxes to be able to get the help.  You know what is
	interesting?  The people doing well legally and the perpetrators
	of crimes have a common interest.  They don't want the government
	involved. The ones doing well legally will quickly take on the
	government as a partner if they feel threaten though.

    >Again, understand that I agree with the basic morality of many of our
    
 Rocush, this is just a good debate.  We  agree, with the basic morality.
 I'm sure you and I can quickly change sides and argue the opposing
 view although I'm sure we would rather not.  Try it mentally?  You will
 be amazed and surprised with you thoughts.

    >laws, I question, however, whether the federal government actually has
    >any right to actually enforce these laws.  I seems to me that the
    >government is without any legal position to actually pass and enforce
    >the laws that restrict property decisions.

 We allow it to happen.....we encourage it....we pay for it...therefore the
 government has the legal right.  The basic government rights have been
 debated for thousand of years........... Sorry, but I'm not going to debate
 it today tomorrow or next month.  Maybe in some distant future though. :)  ->>
	
	In a way we form a government to protect us (The Citizens of the
	United States) from each other in schools, business, religion
	and disputes just as we expect it to protect us and our interests
	against foreign powers.
 

 Peace and happiness to all.

 Armando

    
    re .104
    
>    I just find it ironic that you're trashing the women who agreed with
>    the male status quo about the ERA.  Nothing like turning on the women
>    who agreed with most men back then.
    
    One more time with feeling.  I _supported_ ERA.  So Just who's turning on
    whom who suppored what here?
    
    fred();

    Fred, you said you supported ERA for reasons that most of the women
    who supported ERA would not like (which sounds like you were in the
    "let's shove equality down their throats and make them sorry they
    asked for it" camp.)
    
    This doesn't count much as real 'support for ERA' in my book.
    

    
    >    There is too much momentum for this fight (among women, minorities
    >    and a growing number of white men) to stop it at this late date.
     
    For the umpteenth time, I am all for equality.  However the methods
    and expressed views of some of the members of these "minorities" 
    makes me wonder if _equality_ is what they are really after.

    fred();

    If you're "all for equality", Fred, then stop trying to undermine
    those who seek it.
    
    Put your money where your mouth is and fight with us for equality
    (without trashing those who seek it along the way.)
    
    Call our bluff and you'll see that equal rights is (truly) the
    object here. 
    

    
    re .109

>    Fred, you said you supported ERA for reasons that most of the women
>    who supported ERA would not like (which sounds like you were in the
>    "let's shove equality down their throats and make them sorry they
>    asked for it" camp.)

    Nope.  I supported it because I could see that there were places
    where it would actually have benefited _men_.  Which was the same
    reason that many women turned against it.  Which is the main problem
    I have with most of these so-called "equality" advocates.  They're 
    not so gung-ho about equality when it comes to _them_ giving up 
    something.

    fred();

    Again, it was the feminists (the equality advocates) who *wanted* 
    the ERA, even with the sacrifices and the parts which would have 
    helped men.
    
    The women who were siding with most men at the time objected to
    it.  They are the women you are trashing for it now.
    
    The "equality advocates" have always wanted to take the 'downside'
    along with the 'upside' of being equal partners in the human race.
    

    
    re .111
    
>    If you're "all for equality", Fred, then stop trying to undermine
>    those who seek it.
    
    In case you haven't noticed, I _am_ fighting for _equality_.  I
    am just not engaging in the doublethink that reverse-discrimination
    and get-even-ism is the way to achieve it.
    
    fred():

    When I worked in television years ago, the studio supervisor would
    stop the women on the crew from moving the ceiling lights (when we
    were setting up the shows.)

    It wasn't that we couldn't do it - all it took was a different
    grip on the lights (we would hold the weight with our shoulders
    instead of our hands.)  It took a few extra minutes to do it,
    but it only meant that WE (the women) had a few less minutes to
    sit around on the set waiting for the director after doing the
    set and lighting changes we needed for the show.  It didn't hold
    up the show at all to have us do it.

    So we went to complain to the supervisor's manager.  We said that
    we wanted to move the lights on the ceiling.  We were capable of
    doing it and it was part of the job.  (The guys thought we were
    crazy to demand to do something that they wouldn't have minded
    not having to do.  It wasn't fun at all, and it could be dangerous.)

    The manager agreed and we all took our turns moving the lights on
    the ceiling.  After a bit, the guys realized that we were being
    equal partners on the crew (confirming that the difficult and dangerous
    jobs in the studio belonged to *us* as much as they belonged to the
    men on the crew.)

    This is what equality is about (and this is the position of equality
    advocates.)

    
    So now it's back to personal anecdotes again.  Shall I enter a few
    of mine?  Oh, excuse me, that would be "whining" for a big bad man
    to complain, now wouldn't it?
    
    fred();

    Fred, some men want women to take the 'bad' with the 'good' in being 
    equal partners with men, and then they get real grouchy when a woman 
    shows the willingness (along with other women) to do precisely that.
    
    Now I wonder if such men really want equality, Fred.  They seem to be 
    looking to make women prove themselves from now until the end of time 
    (while men keep calling the shots.)
    
    We'll have to move on to equality without such men, apparently.
    

    
>    Now I wonder if such men really want equality, Fred.  They seem to be 
>    looking to make women prove themselves from now until the end of time 
>    (while men keep calling the shots.)
    
    And I wonder if those who advocate reverse-discrimination and get-even-ism 
    as a "cure" for discrimination are _really_ looking for _equality_ or
    if, as I stated, "equality" is just more 1990's doublespeak.
    
    >We'll have to move on to equality without such men, apparently.
    
    Depends on what you are really looking for.
    fred();

    There's no "get-even-ism" about it.  Women and minorities are just
    trying to be given the opportunities to be equal partners in the
    human race.
    
    If women and minorities gave up and went home, others in our society 
    would yell their heads off about this (even more).
    
    So, women and minorities are fighting for the chance to be equal
    partners instead (because otherwise, our society is wasting some 
    of its best resources.)
    
    It's as simple as that. 

    .119
    
    If you had any real desire for "equality" and not running some other
    agenda you can prove it by directing your vititriol at the following
    targets:
    
    women's onlyhealth clubs
    
    lady's nights at bars
    
    different physical performance on the job.  You can start with LA and
    then get the rest of the cities that have similar rules.  You can also
    attack the NOW rep who was all in favor of the separate rules.
    
    Once you have effectively eliminated theses ineaqualities, then we can
    move on to a real discussion of equality.  Until then you haven't a leg
    to stand on and your claims of a desire for equality are hollow.
    

    Rocush, "lady's nights at bars" are given for men's sakes and for the
    bars' sakes (because when a LOT more women are attracted to the bar,
    then a LOT more men go to the bar to see the women and the bar makes
    a TREMENDOUS amount of money from it even though the women's drinks
    are free or very cheap.)

    Or do you mean that some bars don't let men come in at all on those
    nights?  (I've only heard of "lady's nights" where the women's drinks
    are less expensive.  When I was in college shortly after high school,
    the bars always gave women free pitchers of beer so that the women
    would come back frequently.  It made the men flock to these places.)

    As for "women's only health clubs", we have plenty, plenty, PLENTY
    of co-ed health clubs in this country (where men and women can look
    at each other in skimpy outfits all they like.)  The men-only health
    clubs were banned because they were conducting business deals which
    automatically excluded women.

    The women-only health clubs are for body privacy, not business deals.
    (It may surprise you, but women do not tend to stand around naked
    together showering after working out - and some women prefer to
    exercise without being seen by men.)  If it ever gets to the point
    where billion dollar business deals are being conducted in these
    places (and men are excluded from these deals), then these clubs
    will be banned, too.  Women would have to work out from home to
    get privacy in that case.

    As for physical performance on the job - if brute strength is all
    that's needed, chimpanzees are much more suited to most physical
    jobs than humans.  They're smart, too.  They can be trained to do
    almost anything physical (and they work for peanuts, literally.)  :)

    If the job requires above average HUMAN strength (and some human
    smarts), then it's reasonable to get men who are above-average for
    men and women who are above-average for women.  

    Women are more suited to flying jet fighters, for example (because
    women's bodies can withstand g-forces better than men's bodies),
    but the military lowered the standards for men (so they could
    qualify.)  No one seems to complain about that - people EXPECT
    men to fly jet fighters.

    If the woman is above-average strength and stamina for women (and
    has the other talents/abilities that are required for the job), then
    the woman ought to be allowed to do it.  If arbitrary strength limits
    are going to be set, then they might as well hire chimpanzees.

    > Until then...your claims of a desire for equality are hollow.

    Not at all.  If women have to have the brute strength of above-average
    men, then men would have to have the brute strength of chimpanzees for
    it to be equal (otherwise, you're talking about setting a higher
    relative standard for women than that which is being set for men.)

    Physical jobs are a TINY, TINY portion of the whole picture anyway.
    Most of the jobs that women are trying to get have nothing whatever
    to do with brute strength.

    I'll let Atlant pick this up where I left off if you have further
    comments...  C ya.  :)

    Fred,
    
    I think you are missing something.  Colorado Ratified the ERA well
    ahead of being the "final state."
    
    Colorado di have a challenge to the state ERA back in 1976, it failed,
    and yes, the eagle forum and COW were involved in trying to get this
    ammendment voted out of the state, it failed.  I am quite aware of
    this, as I was married at the time, and the school tried a double
    standard the summer I went to school and Lolita's father stayed home
    with her, as he needed some time off from a grueling schedule.  
    
    They thought he should be working while I was in school and tried to
    alter the financial aid downward to reflect that, even though the
    summers I stayed home, while he was in school he got the full family
    award.  They were a bit surprised to be reminded that this state has an
    ERA, and i wanted their reasoning in writing.  Two days later I had a
    new award letter in hand, reflecting the status of the working,
    in-school partner of a marriage with a child.  
    
    meg

> And I wonder if those who advocate reverse-discrimination and get-even-ism 
> as a "cure" for discrimination are _really_ looking for _equality_ or
> if, as I stated, "equality" is just more 1990's doublespeak.
    
  I'm looking for equality.

  But I also understand the mathematics of getting there.

  Do you?

  You never responded to my point about the calculus.

                                          Atlant

    
>  But I also understand the mathematics of getting there.
>
>  Do you?
>
>  You never responded to my point about the calculus.

    hmmm ... to me it seems like an algebra problem and not a calculus
    problem ... 8^)

    The problem I have with your approach Atlant is that you are lumping
    everyone together by gender and not directly attacking the issues
    individuals or at least sub-groups.
     
    A lot of women (and blacks) who are in their 50s and 60s have faced
    tons of discrimination in their working lives especially at the start
    which assured they would never have the same level of training or
    experience as white males.  AA is doing little for these folks.

    AA's biggest impact has been on younger workers who have grown up in a
    time with very different expectations, opportunities, and outcomes. 
    Younger generations exhibit much less discrimination on the whole and
    the work/pay stats back that up.  However AA, when used,  mostly
    affects this group the most (BTW - this is the same logic as blacks in
    the military argument you used).

    I already favor AA-Light (no quotas or goals but increased recruiting
    and targeted recruiting) and I could be convinced to support stronger
    interventions if they were targeted at those who have faced the brunt
    of discrimination (the older workers).

    Finally, the other issue I have with AA is also a algebra problem.  In
    10-15 years are you going to support a pro white-male AA program when
    the older white males have moved on and the younger cohort groups are
    under represented by white males compared to the who choose to be in
    the profession? (e.g., I don't expect Digital's young engineers to be
    50% women because engineering schools are not 50% women; I would expect
    Digital's young engineer's to reflect the mix in engineering schools). 
    
    Correcting today for the ills of yesterday with people who were not
    part of yesterday creates a math problem of the overall population
    swinging back and forth on who is under represented as each cohort group
    works it's way through for probably the next 100 years.
    
    For me acting in a non-discriminatory manner as soon as possible is
    vital if we as a society are going to walk the talk on equal opportunity. 
    Somehow discriminating against 22 years olds because of what happened
    20-30 years ago is setting exactly the wrong example IMO. 

    Greg                        
     

There seems to be a lot of heat in here and very little light.  I don't know
if I'll be able to add any light, but I'd like to understand exactly what
SPECXN::CONLON (Suzanne?) is saying.

Let's look at the health clubs issue for one:

I believe that it is utterly wrong that anyone should be barred from joining a
particular health club because of that person's sex, race or religion.  In one
word, Suzanne, do you agree with me?

Another recent controversy in the UK is to do with car breakdown rescue
organisations.  If a car carrying a solo woman breaks down it will be given
priority over a car carrying a solo man.  The man, even though paying the
same amount as the woman, will be given lesser treatment.

I believe that this is sexual discrimination against males, and is therefore
wrong.  Suzanne, in one word, do you agree with me?

regards,
//alan

    
    Second set of thougths.
    
    Not suprisingly this can get to be a pretty touchy subject in =wn=.   A
    lot on anedotal stories come up us some terrible discrimination women
    faced.  Stories that make me livid and hope that these mostly men got their
    butts kicked out on the street (counselours telling kids you're a girl
    you should be a nurse not a doctor kinds of stories).
    
    This then sequays into how this discrimination validated the need for
    AA now.  I am so angry this discrimination happened to people in my
    town, state, country, and world.  However, this has little to do with the
    experiences of a 22 year-old graduating from college now.  It was
    terrible and it was condoned but WAS is the operative phrase.  Today
    such discrimination will get your butt kicked (as it should).
    
    Ths tough question for me is how to compensate the older folks who put
    up with all this crap and not how do we jury rig selection criteria
    until we get the numbers right.
                                             
    Greg
                                  

    re .67 and .73
    
    I've only got this far so I apologize if someone else further on
    has responded to these, but there is a need for women's banks simply
    because the traditional (once again *white-male dominated*) banks
    don't value women's business or their business-needs as highly as
    they do men's.  If that were not the case, then perhaps the need for
    women's banks would not have arisen.
    
    Likewise, there are black students unions because they perhaps felt 
    unfairly or under- represented on what *were* primarily white-dominated 
    campuses.  
    
    And women-only healthclubs because the health clubs which were 
    traditionally used by men (of whatever color) either didn't have 
    the equipment for women (weights, machines, etc flat-out TOO 
    BIG/HEAVY) or fostered an environment where women felt uncomfortable 
    working out in front of men. That *fact*, yes men, it is a fact, opens 
    a whole other can of worms....err...I mean, discussion, that we won't
    get into here. 
    
    Let me ask you this, why are there trade-unions?  Because one group
    of people feels the need to seek "protection" by organizing.  There is
    "safety in numbers" where you otherwise felt you were being treated 
    unfairly.
    
    A trade-union is exactly the same as a women's bank or a minority-
    students union.
    
    Sue

    re .127

    The problem with using the end to justify the means is that the means
    themselves often end up causing more problems than the original
    problem.  What I am seeing in America today is that as one group of
    people have reached the conclusion that they do not have the right to
    discriminate, another is becoming increasing convinced that they do. 
    Now we see an increasing number of white males who feel that they are
    being forced to pay a debt that they did not incur and the pendulum is
    swinging back, and we end up with an America that is increasingly
    devided instead of increasingly united.

    fred();

        re .127

    But do these banks, health clubs, student unions, etc _need_ to be
    discriminatory themselves in order to achieve their goals.  Could
    not the health club, for instance be dedicated to correct these
    problems without discriminating against men.  I think so.  If you have 
    one health club that has a better attitude towards women than the 
    other, I'd think it would do quite well compared to a health club that 
    does not.  It just depends on who is in charge.  You may have to start
    a new health club to be able to put the right person in charge, but
    you're starting a new health club anyway.

    fred();

    .121
    
    What a bunch of rationalization and evasion.  Let me tackle these one
    at a time as you are obviously so clearly biased that you are unable to
    see the blatant discrimination that affects others.
    
    If a bar offered a men's night and gave men free drinks or reduced
    price drinks and women had to pay regular price the howls would be
    deafening.  Whether the bar had a good business reason for it or not,
    would be irrelavent.  As an example, look at the flap over dry
    cleaning.  Women complained that they paid more for their cleaning than
    a similar men's product.  The fact that the dry cleaners were trying to
    get men to use their services on a more regular basis really didn't
    matter.  Men could wash and iron their own shirts at home, so in order
    to induce them to use dry cleaning they charge less for a man's shirt. 
    It is a business decision, but women made it a discrimination issue.
    
    Women's only health clubs.  this is the greatest rationalization I have
    ever seen.  I have never conducted a billion $ deal at any health club
    and know of no one who has.  This is a red herring of the first degree. 
    There were men's clubs that offered exercise facilities, but that was a
    side product not the primary purpose.  As far as the contention that
    women don't want men to see them work out - TOUGH.  My wife and I used
    to belong to our local rec center and she would do aerobics while I ran
    and worked out.  She joined Women's Workout World because they had a
    better selection of classes and offered them more often.  I can not
    workout with her because it is a women's only club.  Right next door is
    World Gym and this is co-ed.  I wonder what would happen if they said
    it was going to be men only as women had their own club next door.  The
    protests would be immediate.  My son works out at home because he
    thinks he is too thin and is very uncomfortable when women are around
    because he thinks they are looking at him because he is thin.  There is
    no place he can go where there are just men there.  THis is blatant
    discrimination.
    
    As far as physical requirements go, look to the tests of the Police and
    Fire Departments.  These have very different physical requirements for
    men and women, yet their job covers the same activities.  No one, and I
    mena no one, should ever be in the position of occupying a job that
    requires specific physical requirements, and they are lower for one
    group than another, and those lower standards could endanger someone,
    because of a political agenda.  Set the necessary standards for public
    safety and need and then select anyone who meets those standards.  Do
    not make a separate tier of people that don't need to meet the same
    standard.  Unless, of course, you are willing to keep them on a
    separate track that does not lead to the same positions the others
    could aspire to.
    
    As I said earlier, once you eliminate these inequalities, then I will
    accept that you are interested in true equality.  Until then you simply
    have a personal agenda and bias that you are disguising asa social
    wrong.
    

    
    Along the same vein as the last couple, how did Bill Gates, Steve
    Wasjniak(sp), and Ken Olson become CEO's of Fortune 500 companies?
    They started the company and grew it into a Fortune 500 Company.
    How many of the current Fortune 500 were among the Fortune 500 10,
    20, 30 years ago?  Likewise how many of the current Fortune 500
    will be Fortune 500 10, 20, 30 years from now?

    Since more than half of the new companies these days are started
    by women, I suspect that the so called "glass ceiling" will be 
    shattered by the women CEO's of these companies long before it is 
    broken by all the belly-aching about "glass ceilings" in the current 
    Fortune 500, which, by the time the "glass ceiling" is "broken"
    may not even be a Fortuen 500 company any more. 
    
    fred();

> Now we see an increasing number of white males who feel that they are
> being forced to pay a debt that they did not incur and the pendulum is
> swinging back, and we end up with an America that is increasingly
> devided instead of increasingly united.

  The first part is true: The current crop of white males are
  being asked to pay a debt they did not create. However, even
  the current crop of white males have benefited quite well,
  thank you, from the existence of that debt. So don't get
  all broken up about the fact that you're being asked to
  pay a portion of it back.

  ...increasingly divided? Whether on not *THAT* happens
  mostly depends on whether folks like you are willing to
  burn down the village in order to save it. Accept equality
  and there won't be increasing division. Fight against it
  in an effort to hold onto your old position of dominance-
  by-heredity and yes, division certainly will increase.

                                   Atlant

Greg:

  Whether or not the function Minority_Membershipin_the_Group()
  achieves a certain value over time is most certainly a calculus
  problem, solved by integrating Effort_to_Integrate() over time.
  And as I pointed out, if you'd like minority membership to trend
  upwards, there's got to be some effort to integrate. In some
  folk's language, that's called reverse discrimination.

  Will we overshoot in minority membership? We don't have to.
  These sorts of system dynamics are well understood by folks.
  Will minority membership fluctuate in many groups (such as
  the set of all engineers) around some ideal value that we might
  call "Fair representation"? Of course! We're dealing with numbers
  of humans that are still small by statistical standards.

                                   Atlant

> And, as I've already pointed out, sometimes the best propaganda of
> all is to just let the other side talk.

  I've appreciated everything you have to say, Fred! :-)

                                   Atlant

  I note form the news this morning that three groups are
  challenging a single-sex girls public school set up by the
  City of New York.

  One of the groups challenging the school is...


  THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR *WOMEN*!

  You'd best send those membership dues, boys. They're
  fighting your cause here!

                                   Atlant

    
    re .132
    
  >However, even
  >the current crop of white males have benefited quite well,
  >thank you, from the existence of that debt. So don't get
  >all broken up about the fact that you're being asked to
  >pay a portion of it back.
    
    The attiture you exhibit here is quite telling.  However, my
    benefits have been _earned_ IN SPITE OF the current atmosphaere
    of discrimination, not because of it, thank you.  I've had _nothing_
    given me because of any government program _or_ good ol' boy system.
    In my lifetime I've been denied at least two jobs (that they've 
    admitte anyway) because "we need to hire a woman/minority".  Does 
    that mean that I now have the right to discriminate against 
    women/minorities in order to "correct the problem"?
    
>  ...increasingly divided? Whether on not *THAT* happens
>  mostly depends on whether folks like you are willing to
>  burn down the village in order to save it. Accept equality
>  and there won't be increasing division. Fight against it
>  in an effort to hold onto your old position of dominance-
>  by-heredity and yes, division certainly will increase.
    
    Again your attitude goes more to support my argument than to disprove
    it.  I find your use of "equality" just more 1990's doublespeak
    in ligth of the admitted current discrimination.  If you are 
    suffering discrimination, you have a right to ask that the 
    discrimination stop.  You do _not_ have the right to discriminate
    against B because A discriminated against you.
    
    fred();

> If a bar offered a men's night and gave men free drinks or reduced
> price drinks and women had to pay regular price the howls would be
> deafening.  Whether the bar had a good business reason for it or not,
> would be irrelavent.  As an example, look at the flap over dry
> cleaning.  Women complained that they paid more for their cleaning than
> a similar men's product.  The fact that the dry cleaners were trying to
> get men to use their services on a more regular basis really didn't
> matter.  Men could wash and iron their own shirts at home, so in order
> to induce them to use dry cleaning they charge less for a man's shirt. 
> It is a business decision, but women made it a discrimination issue.

  The difference, of course, is that dry cleaners are simply
  in business to get one's clothes clean. Anyone's clothes.

  The bars that offer "ladies nights" are in business to sell
  alcohol and sexual opportunity. Now the first commodity (alcohol)
  could be said to be equally available and probably equally
  desireable to all, but the second commodity (sexual opportunity)
  isn't. Far more men apparently want to meet drunken women than
  women want to meet drunken men.

  So the bars do what's necessary to even out the ratio a bit.
  And what's necessary is to provide a business incentive so
  more women will show up.
                                   Atlant

> Women's only health clubs.  this is the greatest rationalization I have
> ever seen.  I have never conducted a billion $ deal at any health club
> and know of no one who has.  This is a red herring of the first degree. 
> There were men's clubs that offered exercise facilities, but that was a
> side product not the primary purpose.

  Actually, the war wasn't fought over the likes of Holiday Health
  Spas. The war was fought over the likes of those private mens'
  clubs with the big, over-stuffed leather chairs and the air thick
  with cigar smoke and sound of hundred dollar bills crackling. And
  rest assured, business was done there. And the business that was
  done there clearly and intentionally excluded women.

                                   Atlant

    
>  The bars that offer "ladies nights" are in business to sell
>  alcohol and sexual opportunity. Now the first commodity (alcohol)
>  could be said to be equally available and probably equally
>  desireable to all, but the second commodity (sexual opportunity)
>  isn't. Far more men apparently want to meet drunken women than
>  women want to meet drunken men.
    
    Actually the bars would probably attract more men  by 1/2 price
    drinks for men than 1/2 price drinks for women.  And at the prices
    most of them charge they'd still make money.
    
    fred();

    

>  Actually, the war wasn't fought over the likes of Holiday Health
>  Spas. The war was fought over the likes of those private mens'

    So what do you think would be the response if someone wanted to
    open a "Holiday Health Spa" for men next to a womens-only health
    club?

    Likewise, as soon as women have gained entrance to these men-only
    clubs, more often then not they've demanded women-only workout 
    areas.  Not the best way to foster good will for anti-discrimination
    attitudes.  

    fred();

    .137
    
    Wow!!! It's been a long time since I've seen convoluted reasoning like
    that.  The bottom line is that it's discrimination, and the reasons, as
    you have repeatedly pointed out, are really immaterial.
    
    Women were not discriminated agains in the past by having to pay higher
    prices than men, so offering lower prices now is just pure
    discrimination.  whether it's good business or not, according to you,
    should not matter.
    

> ...my benefits have been _earned_ IN SPITE OF the current atmosphaere
> of discrimination, not because of it, thank you.  I've had _nothing_
> given me because of any government program _or_ good ol' boy system.

  Of course. :-)

  However, you were probably steered into a technical or math
  classes because your were a boy, whereas the girls were gen-
  erally steered off the technical track.

  You were basically safe from unwanted sexual attention because
  of your gender, whereas girls and women must face this virtually
  every day.

  You're mostly safe from being used by the advertising industry
  as a marketing tool, whereas the images of sexual women are
  routinely used to sell everything including many items that
  have absolutely no inherent linkage to gender.

  When you went job intervieing, you were assumed to be qualified
  based on the qualifications dangling between your legs. Women,
  on the other hand, were and often still are assumed unqualified
  until they deliver proof positive that they are qualified.
  And for a long time, women were assumed to be unreliable as
  well, as they might get their periods or worse, get pregnant.

  You were assumed to be a family man, in need of the income
  to support your family. Women, on the other hand, were assumed
  to only need the extra income to pay for "frills".

  You probably never had to "put out" to get a promotion. And
  when you got promotions, people probably didn't talk about how
  you had "slept your way" into the new job.

  Many of these assumptions *ARE STILL MADE*, even after all
  these years and all the education from the women's movement.

  Sure, you did it all completely on your own Fred. You and Peter,
  Cashew, and Almondo.

                                   Atlant

> So what do you think would be the response if someone wanted to
> open a "Holiday Health Spa" for men next to a womens-only health
> club?

  Try it and see, rather than trying to use a hypotehtical
  to blast us.
                                   Atlant

> Wow!!! It's been a long time since I've seen convoluted reasoning like
> that.  The bottom line is that it's discrimination, and the reasons, as
> you have repeatedly pointed out, are really immaterial.

  You never actually discuss the issue, do you?

  Your opining gambit is always an ad hominem ("To the man")
  attack, isn't it?

  How odd!
                                   Atlant

    .138
    
    Then you agree that the existence of a women's-only health club is pure
    discrimination and is completely unsupportable.
    
    Once you eliminate this clear inequality then we can talk about the
    other areas that seem to be such an issue.  Until then you would seem
    to want to attack one area but leave other areas alone.  This does
    nothing to further your position of a willingness to address the
    discrimination issue.
    

    
>  Will we overshoot in minority membership? We don't have to.
>  These sorts of system dynamics are well understood by folks.

    Atlant I'll buy the calculus argument but in all the system dynamic
    models I have studied systems went through some dampening wave pattern
    to equilibrium.  One of the major lessons I learned from system
    dynamics was attempts to intervene (especially by governments) almost
    always create pendulum swings past the intended affect.


>  Will minority membership fluctuate in many groups (such as
>  the set of all engineers) around some ideal value that we might
>  call "Fair representation"? Of course! We're dealing with numbers
>  of humans that are still small by statistical standards.

    I'll buy that for blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities but not
    for women.  Women are the majority in the USA and any program that
    explicitly discriminates for them will have big ramifications.

                                  
    Greg

> Women were not discriminated agains in the past by having to pay higher
> prices than men, so offering lower prices now is just pure
> discrimination.

  No, it's bidness. Supply and Demand. Capitalism. Price the
  product where it sells. All wonderful American tenets, or so
  says the Right *EXCEPT* when it's being used against them.

  How odd!

                                   Atlant

> Then you agree that the existence of a women's-only health club is pure
> discrimination and is completely unsupportable.

  I agree it's (by definition) discrimination.

  I don't have any opinion about whether it's unsupportable.

  And *I* have no interest in the issue (I'm not aggrieved
  by it) so I'm not going to take up arms against it. You
  seem aggrieved -- you go fight it. I don't see you on
  the barricades fighting for my issues and they keep me
  plenty busy already.
                                   Atlant

    .144
    
    You apparently don't understand the concept of an ad hominem attack. 
    Plus, I did address the issue.  You apparently don't like the answer,
    but that really doesn't matter does it.
    
    Quite frankly, you ignored the issue and attempted to deflect it by
    rather convoluted reasoning which I was pleased to point out.
    
    Thank you.
    

Greg:

> Atlant I'll buy the calculus argument but in all the system dynamic
> models I have studied systems went through some dampening wave pattern
> to equilibrium.  One of the major lessons I learned from system
> dynamics was attempts to intervene (especially by governments) almost
> always create pendulum swings past the intended affect.

  But remember "critical damping"? That's that one value that
  gets you to the setpoint fastest but without overshooting.
  You're right, you can get to the setpoint faster but then
  the system will oscillate about the setpoint for a while
  (in an exponentially decreasing [e^-x] way).


> I'll buy that for blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities
> but not for women.  Women are the majority in the USA and any
> program that explicitly discriminates for them will have big
> ramifications.

  You're right -- they're a majority in the general poplation
  but they're certainly a distinct minority in many more-
  specific populations. I think it was you who mentioned
  Engineering schools (and thereby, engineering jobs). That's
  clearly a case where any casual inspection will reveal a
  deficit of women.

  So my position vis-a-vis all this is in regards to these
  specific populations.
                                   Atlant

    .142
    
    Boy, you sure make some sweeping generalizations.  I have never been in
    an interview that was not focused on my qualifications and experience. 
    I have, however, been passed by because I was the wrong race or sex.
    
    Your contention regarding advertising is a rather interesting spin. 
    You apparently don't think that men are being exploited by ads directed
    at them to appeal to something other than a rational decision.  Perhaps
    you should direct your attack to those who would participate in such
    ads as opposed those who are targeted for the ads.  the participant has
    the ability to say yes or no before the fact.  the target is simply the
    target.
    

.149> You apparently don't understand the concept of an ad hominem attack. 

.earlier> Wow!!! It's been a long time since I've seen convoluted reasoning like that.

  If I don't understand an "ad hominem attack", perhaps
  you'd like to explain who this statement was attacking?
  Maybe I need a sentence diagram.

  Or maybe you're wrong.

                                   Atlant

> Boy, you sure make some sweeping generalizations.  I have never been in
> an interview that was not focused on my qualifications and experience. 
> I have, however, been passed by because I was the wrong race or sex.

  It's just like the "LAWS THAT BENEFIT WHITE GUYS" issue I
  raised earlier. There's no need to even mention this
  special qualification you have. The male interviewer
  and the male interveiwee just "know".

                                   Atlant

    .147 & 148
    
    First of all, I have no problem with business decisions that are
    designed to increase an owners profits.  I pointed it out as an example
    of discrimination and inequlity.  You are the one raising the
    inequality issue.
    
    Also, you state that if you are uninterested in a particular form of
    discrimination then it really doesn't matter and someone else should
    deal with it.  It strikes me as rathe hypocritical that you would
    attack one group for apparent inequality, but turn a blind eye to
    similar inequality because it doesn't fit into your bias.
    
    Quite frankly, I am opposed to discrimination and inequality and to the
    extent that I can address it, I do.  At the same time, I have little
    tolerance for those who want to play the blame game and ignore the very
    same issues one one side that they attack on the other side.
    
    Consistency, please.
    

    .152
    
    You clearly don't understand an ad hominem attack with this entry.  My
    statement did not attack you, it attacked, or more correctly addressed
    your convoluted reasoning.
    
    You may believe this is an ad hominem attack, but it isn't.
    
    Let me give you a clear example.  The Democrats adn Clinton have made
    statements such as, " The Republicans are greedy, mean-spirited,
    racist/sexists rich guys."  this attacks the man.  If they said, "The
    Republican ideas are flawed because of.... and would have .....result."
    This would attack the idea or reasoning, not the man.
    
    Get it now.
    

    .153
    
    Now there you go again.  Your original statement about white guys was
    never proven, but you state it as fact.  This, unfortunately, does not
    make it so.
    
    Also, what about the female interviewers.  do they have this same bias
    toward white guys.  I can assure you they do not.
    
    Once again, generalizations do not support your position but do raise
    more smoke.
    

    re .142
    
>  However, you were probably steered into a technical or math
>  classes because your were a boy, whereas the girls were gen-
>  erally steered off the technical track.

    I was not "steered" anywhere.  I got into computers after 4 years
    as a truck driver and 2 years of part-time/unemployment.  I got
    into computers because it looked like I might be able to earn
    enough there to pay the bills and support my kids (if I ever got
    a chance to get custody again).

>  You were basically safe from unwanted sexual attention because
>  of your gender, whereas girls and women must face this virtually
>  every day.

    Wrong again.  I've been "hit on" by my share of homosexual males
    _and_ women.

>  You're mostly safe from being used by the advertising industry
>  as a marketing tool, whereas the images of sexual women are
>  routinely used to sell everything including many items that
>  have absolutely no inherent linkage to gender.

    Nonsequitor.  The advertisement is dedicated to exploit the sexual
    drive of _men_ and make them think of a certain product as "sexy".

>   When you went job intervieing, you were assumed to be qualifie
    >  based on the qualifications dangling between your legs. 

    Wrong again!  If so I must have *some* qualifications because as I've 
    stated before, I was recruited by a woman and hired by a minority.  

>  You probably never had to "put out" to get a promotion. And
>  when you got promotions, people probably didn't talk about how
>  you had "slept your way" into the new job.

    Nor did I ever have the opportunity to ;^).

>  Sure, you did it all completely on your own Fred. You and Peter,
>  Cashew, and Almondo.

    As I said, I did it in spite of, not because of.

    fred();

> Also, you state that if you are uninterested in a particular form of
> discrimination then it really doesn't matter and someone else should
> deal with it.

  No, I *DIDN'T* say that. I said IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
  I have no use for health clubs.

  If you think I'm going to fight all your battles just because
  you want me to, think again!

                                   Atlant

> You clearly don't understand an ad hominem attack with this entry.  My
> statement did not attack you, it attacked, or more correctly addressed
> your convoluted reasoning.
    
  "Oh! That's different! Never mind!"

  You really believe yourself, don't you?

                                   Atlant

    re .158
    
>  If you think I'm going to fight all your battles just because
>  you want me to, think again!
    
    Now suppose we _all_ had that attitude?  Especially all those
    "racist white guys" burried at Gettysberg, Antitem, Bull Run, 
    Valley Forge, Omaha Beach, etc, etc, etc, etc.
    
    fred();

    .159
    
    Oh, I get it.  If I disagree with questionable logic or reasoning, then
    it is an ad hominem attack to point it out.
    
    Well, if that's the case, guilty as charged.  Unfortunately this is a
    warn out tactic by the liberal crowd and most people have seen through
    it and take it for what it is, an interesting diversion.
    

    .158
    
    No, I expect you to be consistent.
    

    
    Hmmmm, if I should be required to pay for things my ancestors may or
    may not have done to women/minorities, why should I not be allowed
    to collect for things my ancestord did _for_ women/minorities?  
    
    fred();

    .163
    
    Hey, what about what I am owed because of the discrimination my own
    father faced because he was a Catholic.  He was excluded from numerous
    jobs as a young man because of his religious beliefs.  this certainly
    set him and me back.
    

     re .164
    
    And I am certain that I can find a few Italians whose ancestors killed 
    and/or enslaved some of my ancestors.  The compund interest on that
    one ought to give me at least a Villa on the coast somwhere.
    
    fred();

re .157

>  You're mostly safe from being used by the advertising industry
>  as a marketing tool, whereas the images of sexual women are
>  routinely used to sell everything including many items that
>  have absolutely no inherent linkage to gender.
>>>>>    Nonsequitor.  The advertisement is dedicated to exploit the sexual
>>>>>    drive of _men_ and make them think of a certain product as "sexy".

Yes, but why exploit the sex drive of men?  What's the need?  Is product A
better than product B...is (or should be) the bottom line...not who can
put the prettiest girl in their commercial.  So, you've just thrown your
money away on a terrible product because you thought it was sexy.  Now,
there's an intelligent thing to do.

>  You probably never had to "put out" to get a promotion. And
>  when you got promotions, people probably didn't talk about how
>  you had "slept your way" into the new job.
>>>>>    Nor did I ever have the opportunity to ;^).

The "opportunity"?!  Like it would be a desirable path for someone to take?!
Afraid you're missing something?!  Wink, wink?!  It's that attitude that
women find so repulsive.  

But, I don't want to misinterpret your remark or offend by assuming anything 
     here, so could you explain what you meant my not having had the 
    opportunity to sleep your way into a better job...and the wink at the end.
                                                                   

    
    re .166

>Yes, but why exploit the sex drive of men?  What's the need?  Is product A
>better than product B...is (or should be) the bottom line...not who can
>put the prettiest girl in their commercial.  So, you've just thrown your
>money away on a terrible product because you thought it was sexy.  Now,
>there's an intelligent thing to do.

    It called _marketing_.

>But, I don't want to misinterpret your remark or offend by assuming anything 
>     here, so could you explain what you meant my not having had the 
>    opportunity to sleep your way into a better job...and the wink at the end.

    You ignored the smiley face again.  However....

    To the chagrin of men _and_ women, this method has been a path to the
    top more often than you can probably count.  There really are women
    out there who will use it willingly.  Who is getting "exploited" then.
    However this path is usually closed to men.  All the more reason that 
    I can say I've gotten where I've gotten in spite of the system rather 
    than because of it.

    fred();

  :-) = Smile

  ;-) or ,-) = Wink

  Noting 101, don't you know?

                                   Atlant

  No comment from the boys?

  Shocked I am, positively shocked!

>   <<< Note 238.135 by ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/" >>>
>                   -< Help fight reverse discrimination! >->
> I note form the news this morning that three groups are
> challenging a single-sex girls public school set up by the
> City of New York.
>
> One of the groups challenging the school is...
>
> THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR *WOMEN*!
> You'd best send those membership dues, boys. They're
> fighting your cause here!


  No, I'm not really shocked, or even surprised.

                                   Atlant

    .169
    As far as your original note is concerned I would be very interested in
    finding out why NOW is part of this action.  Just because a particular
    group is involved in a particular action does not mean that they have
    changed their goals nor how they want to construct their world.
    
    Please provide the details of NOW's participation in this in this and
    why they are attacking the school.  I think you will find that there is
    a completely different reason for their involvement than the one you
    attempt to infer.
    

    This goes back a few notes but is rather interesting in debunking the
    "wage-gap" issue so often touted as evidence of rampant discrimination
    against women.
    
    Micheal Lynch and Katherine Post published a detailed study of
    comparative wages in the summer edition of The Public Interest.  They
    started with the popular statistic of $.74 for women compared to $1.00
    for men.  This statistic ignores any differences in age, education,
    senority and time in the work force.  When they first looked at
    accounting for educational levels they found the samediffernce. 
    Looking further they found that using bachelor's degrees in total was
    inaccurate as more than one third of all bachelor's degrees received by
    women were in communications, education, English literature, health
    professions and the visual and performing arts.  Only 17% of men
    received degrees in these areas.  26% of men received degrees in
    business and 13% in engineering compared to 2% for women.
    
    But what happens when you level all factors.  When you compare like
    workforces i.e., age, education, educational areas, senority, etc,
    according to June O'Neill of the Congressional Budget Office the wage
    difference is 2%.  Women are at 98% of the wage rates for men.  I would
    think this falls within the statistical range.
    
    Using gross figures have been inaccurate for years, and now there is a
    detailed study that really compares apples to apples and oranges to
    oranges.
    
    I wouldlike to see this study continued with finer granularity and
    think more and more of the hysterical sterotyping will be identified
    for what it truly is.
    

    
    Not to argue the other side of the point, but there was a report on the
    radio this morning that indicated a study that did show a discrepancy
    in pay in males and females in one particular group--The Washington 
    Press Corp.
    
    fred();

>================================================================================
>Note 238.58               is it money or gender/race???                58 of 172
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    15 lines  22-AUG-1996 12:20
>                   -< Oh you logical guys are such a hoot! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Strawman/false-logic alert:

>> Because your parents probably voted for FDR et. al., do you apologise
>> to all Japanese people you meet beacuse your pres, Truman dropped the
>> A-bomb on them? Your parents were guilty of this (my parents were
>> Republicans  8-)  ) election of the person who did this, so you by
>> default are guilty for the action that resulted. AA is the same thing!
>> The sins of the parents being placed upon the sons

>  That paragraph assumes that Republicans were *NOT* in favor
>  of dropping the bomb. That is quite unlikely to be true. So
>  it's a safe bet that you're just as guilty as you're trying
>  to make Suzanne (and me) out to be.

>                                   Atlant
    
    
    The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
    sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
    parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
    you are guilty. Now start apologizing...
    
    Steve

> Please provide the details of NOW's participation in this in this and
> why they are attacking the school.  I think you will find that there is
> a completely different reason for their involvement than the one you
> attempt to infer.

  Sorry, but you're wrong. The news story I heard explicitely
  stated it. They're doing exactly for the reason that they fear
  this would open the door to the legalization of publicly-funded
  single-sex institutions.

  But I'm sure that didn't convince you so I'll leave it as an
  exercise for you to find details that will convince you.

                                   Atlant

Steve:

> The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
> sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
> parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
> you are guilty. Now start apologizing...

  I'm sorry, what party was the Supreme Commander, General Dwight
  D. Eisenhower again? Didn't he grow up to be President or something?

  And somehow, I can't help but believe that General Douglas MacArthur,
  commander of the Pacific forces was also a Republican, although I
  have no facts at hand to prove this.

  I'll bet General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project
  was also a Republican.

  You think these guys had nothing to do with the decision to drop
  the bomb? That's doubtful in the extreme!

  Apologize yourself.
                                          Atlant


P.S.: Oppie, on the other hand, was my kind of guy: A Lefty!
      He was for a demonstration deployment, not for vaporizing
      Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

        re .175

    1)Head of Joint Chiefs was Marshal.  It's doubtful that Eisenhower
      new anything.

    2)The "demonstration" before the bombing of Nagsaki didn't seem to
      help much.

    3)Nearly as many died in the firebomb attacks on Tokyo as died as
      the result of Heroshima.  Tokyo wasn't A-bomed because there wasn't
      enough of it left to waste a bomb on.  Using the A-bomb to end the 
      war was the lesser of evils.

    4)If the U.S. had entered the war 6 months later, Germany would have
      developed the A-bomb--and rockets to deliver them.  Thank you, Japan,
      for bombing Pearl Harbor.

    5)Japan has admitted that they were working on an A-bomb and admittedly
      would not have had any qualms about using it had they gotten it work.

    fred();

Steve:

> The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
> sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
> parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
> you are guilty. Now start apologizing...

  By the way, I don't believe I've ever stated which party *MY*
  parents voted for. I'd be unlikely to do so as I honestly don't
  know, election-by-election, whom they voted for.

  But if it makes you feel better to aim your flawed analogy in
  my direction, carry on.
                                     Atlant

  This tangent is a blast!


> 1)Head of Joint Chiefs was Marshal.  It's doubtful that Eisenhower
>   new anything.

  I didn't mention the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Actually, "Chief
  of Staff"). But since you did, what party was George? (He later became
  Truman's Secretary of State and later Secretary of Defense, so I suppose
  he may have been a Democrat.


> 2)The "demonstration" before the bombing of Nagsaki didn't seem to
>    help much.

  There was no formal "demonstration" before Hiroshima. "Trinity"
  was a test staged for the developers and the US Military. There
  was some debate about whether the Plutonium implosion device
  would actually work. There was no debate about whether the
  much-simpler Uranium "gun" device would work. (Oh, and there was
  also that slight concern about igniting the atmosphere, but that
  didn't stop our red-blooded-boys from pushing the button. :-) )


> 3)Nearly as many died in the firebomb attacks on Tokyo as died as
>   the result of Heroshima.

  And I suppose someone will tell me next that no Republicans
  knew about that, either. Or about Dresden.


> Tokyo wasn't A-bomed because there wasn't enough of it left to
> waste a bomb on.

  Actually, that brings up an interesting point. Several Japanese
  cities were spared from any bombing *JUST SO* we'd have some nice
  virgin targets to vaporize with the gadget. The Japanese themselves
  wondered why, among others, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared the
  rain of bombs, even though they were both reasonably important
  strategic cities. Nor Republicans knew about that either?


> Using the A-bomb to end the war was the lesser of evils.

  Is this your opinion, or did God Almighty tell you herself?
  You're aware that men of good faith debate this point, right?


> 5)Japan has admitted that they were working on an A-bomb and admittedly
>   would not have had any qualms about using it had they gotten it work.

  Well, that certainly makes it okay then, doesn't it? Just like
  10,000 years of male discrimination makes a few years of reverse
  discrimination okay. Oh! I forgot! You're *AGAINST* Tit-for-Tat
  in that case! You're apparently only for nuclear Tit-for-Tat.


  Nice chatting with you, Fred!

                                            Atlant

    To continue the A-bomb rathole.
    
    If we had not A-bombed Japan into unconditional surrender and had
    negotiated peace instead, if McArthur had not broken the back of the
    Japanese ruling class, and McArthur had not written a new constitution
    for Japan (still used 50 years after Japan was handed their freedom
    back, btw), we would in all likelihood be dealing with a Japan still
    ruled by the old ruling class--and armed with nuclear weapons.  Think
    about that when you go to bed tonight..
    
    fred();

    
    re .178
    
>> 2)The "demonstration" before the bombing of Nagsaki didn't seem to
>>    help much.
>
>  There was no formal "demonstration" before Hiroshima. "Trinity"
    
    Note I said there was a "demonstration" before Nagasaki.  It was
    called Heroshima.  If that "demonstration" didn't get their attention
    why should we believe any other demonstration would have.
    
    fred();

>             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
>                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
>================================================================================
>Note 238.173              is it money or gender/race???               173 of 175
>APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce"                            28 lines  26-AUG-1996 12:55
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>================================================================================
>Note 238.58               is it money or gender/race???                58 of 172
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    15 lines  22-AUG-1996 12:20
>                   -< Oh you logical guys are such a hoot! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  That paragraph assumes that Republicans were *NOT* in favor
>  of dropping the bomb. That is quite unlikely to be true. So
>  it's a safe bet that you're just as guilty as you're trying
>  to make Suzanne (and me) out to be.

>                                   Atlant
    
======BZZT YOU ARE WRONG=======
    
    The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
    sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
    parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
    you are guilty. Now start apologizing...



>             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
>                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
>================================================================================
>Note 238.175              is it money or gender/race???               175 of 175
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    27 lines  26-AUG-1996 13:46
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>Steve:
>
>> The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
>> sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
>> parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
>> you are guilty. Now start apologizing...
>
>  I'm sorry, what party was the Supreme Commander, General Dwight
>  D. Eisenhower again? Didn't he grow up to be President or something?

======BZZT YOU ARE WRONG=======

Ike was in Europe. You obviously well versed in geography too. He did not know
of the bomb either. He was prez in the 50's. Read your history. 8-)




>  And somehow, I can't help but believe that General Douglas MacArthur,
>  commander of the Pacific forces was also a Republican, 
>  although I have no facts at hand to prove this.
  ================================================

Don't let that stop you...  8-)

======BZZT YOU ARE WRONG=======


Though Mac did toy with the idea as a Repub, it was after WWII. He did not know
either and was quite upset that he didn't know of the bomb.




>  I'll bet General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project
>  was also a Republican.

Pure speculation! You know nothing of WWII history, so why would you go out on
a limb? I am writing a book on WWII history and would not verture such a guess.
Different debating techniques I guess.





>  You think these guys had nothing to do with the decision to drop
>  the bomb? 

Yes I do. And ALL the history I have read says the same.



>That's doubtful in the extreme!
 ===============================

With your track record (see above)....




>  Apologize yourself.

I have nothing to aplogize for. I made no historically incorrect statements.
Furthermore, I used no speculation.

>                                          Atlant


>P.S.: Oppie, on the other hand, was my kind of guy: A Lefty!
>      He was for a demonstration deployment, not for vaporizing
>      Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

========== BZZT Got one right!  =========

Of course he was wrong and it would not have worked, but he was a liberal and
they don't usually connect cause and affect...  8-)


Steve

fred:

> Note I said there was a "demonstration" before Nagasaki.  It was
> called Heroshima.  If that "demonstration" didn't get their attention
> why should we believe any other demonstration would have.
    
  "Heroshima" Was that Freudian, Fred?

  Anyway, men of good faith also debate whether waiting another
  day or two would have produced the same result as going ahead
  and bombing Nagasaki. That is, many believe that the Japanese
  goverment would have surrendered just as surely after one
  A_bomb as after two.

  But, of course, if we had not bombed Nagasaki, then we wouldn't
  have had real-life [sic] data for both of those bomb technoogies
  ("Pu-239 implosion" and "U-235 gun"), would we?

                                        Atlant

    AFTER they announced that they would surrender, before they actually
    did, Japanese aircraft attacked an unarmed B-32 bomber on photo recon
    over Japan. Yep, wait some more...
    
    Men of greater intellect search for the truth and learn from history...
    
    Steve

As you folks like to say:

> The Repub's knew nothing of the bomb, neither did Truman till he was
> sworn in. That is history, read some. So my analogy holds true, as my
> parents were Repubs, and yours were Dems and they voted for FDR/Truman
> you are guilty. Now start apologizing...

  Let's see some references.

  And as I pointed out, I have no idea what party my parents voted
  for.


> Ike was in Europe. You obviously well versed in geography too. He did not
> know of the bomb either. He was prez in the 50's. Read your history. 8-)

  You know, I actually *KNEW* that!

  Again, cite some references that our Ike didn't know.



> Though Mac did toy with the idea as a Repub, it was after WWII. He did
> not know either and was quite upset that he didn't know of the bomb.

  And like Clarence Thomas, he just never gave party affiliation
  a second thought until after that pesky war. And he had no idea
  what was going on on the Pacific island where the bombs were
  staged. And he had no idea why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never
  bombed with conventional weapons. And I fell off the turnip
  truck yesterday.


> [Groves] Pure speculation! You know nothing of WWII history, so why would
> you go out on a limb? I am writing a book on WWII history and would not
> verture such a guess.

  Just prove me wrong with a reference or citation or two.

  You understand, of course, that a great many history books can
  be written claiming that all these people just had absolutely no
  idea what was going on at all those funny places like Chicago
  and Los Alamos and Hannford and Oak Ridge, or where the literally
  *BILLIONS* of dollars of black military spending was going or
  where all the physicists, mathematicians, and radiochemists had
  disappeared to, or why people referred to copper as "Honest-to-
  God Copper", and so on and so on, but it may still be several of
  our chief military and polictical folks knew, none-the-less.

  Certainly when you read more-modern accounts of the whole
  experience of the Manhattan Project, you get a different sense
  than when you read the propaganda that was being pushed by the
  AEC during the '50s and 60's.

  Well, I'd better "Duck and Cover" now, as I'm sure the next
  volley of disinformation will be incoming soon.

                                             Atlant

        re .182

>  But, of course, if we had not bombed Nagasaki, then we wouldn't
>  have had real-life [sic] data for both of those bomb technologies
>  ("Pu-239 implosion" and "U-235 gun"), would we?

    One positive aspect about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that we do
    _know_ how horrible these weapons are.  That knowledge has probably
    prevented more war than anything else in the last 50 years.  What
    would have happened in Western Europe between the Soviet Red Army
    and the Allies had it not been for the bomb?  Also the bomb was
    instrumental in ending the Korean Conflict.  Eisenhower threatened
    to use it if China and North Korea did not negotiate peace--they
    got off easy.  

    Also if the U.S. was the big-baddies you'd like to believe, for several 
    years the U.S. was the _only_ nation to have the bomb.  If we had wanted
    the World, it was ours.  Also note the number of Germans and Japanese
    who had to die to regain their freedom after WWII.

    fred();

Steve:

> AFTER they announced that they would surrender, before they actually
> did, Japanese aircraft attacked an unarmed B-32 bomber on photo recon
> over Japan. Yep, wait some more...


  Yes, I'm sure our C-cubed systems would *NEVER* have let such
  a heinous thing happen. I'm sure our armies are kept in perfect
  control 100% of the time.

  Pardon Me Lei?

  By the way, we never fought in Cambodia, either. :-)  And our
  troops were never, ever exposed to Agent Orange. In fact, we never
  even used the stuff.
                                        Atlant      

> Again, cite some references that our Ike didn't know.

  Adding to this, I just had a funny flash of a possible conversation
  with Ike:

    Air Adjutant: Tonight's bombing mission is to blow up the German
                  "heavy-water" production sites.

    Ike:          We're going to blow up water???

    Air Adjutant: Well, The brain-boys called it "Deuterium Ox-side".
                  It must have something to do with Deutsche, err,
                  German food production.


  What explanation do you really suppose they offered him as our air
  forces flew sorties to destroy Germany's nascent nuclear capability?

  You don't suppose he knew THE TRUTH, do you?


                                         Atlant

    
    >  Pardon Me Lei?

    The most shameful thing about the Vietnam conflict was when Gerald Ford
    broke America's promise to return if the peace agreement didn't hold
    up and abandoned _millions_ to be slaughtered.  A peace agreement
    that the oh-so-honerable North Vietnam and no intention of honoring
    in the first place.

    fred();

    
    re .187
    
>    Air Adjutant: Tonight's bombing mission is to blow up the German
>                  "heavy-water" production sites.
>
>    Ike:          We're going to blow up water???
>
>    Air Adjutant: Well, The brain-boys called it "Deuterium Ox-side".
>                  It must have something to do with Deutsche, err,
>                  German food production.
>
>
>  What explanation do you really suppose they offered him as our air
>  forces flew sorties to destroy Germany's nascent nuclear capability?
    
    It's boubtful that Eisenhower knew anything about any specific bombing
    missions.  The specifics would have been left up to the Army-Air-Corp
    Generals.  Penemunde(sp) (V2 development complex) was not bombed 
    until late in the war.
    
    fred();

    
    Besides, Eisenhower had his hands full just trying to keep Bradley
    and Patton from throttling Montgomery. 
    fred();

> Besides, Eisenhower had his hands full just trying to keep Bradley
> and Patton from throttling Montgomery. 

  Boys will be boys, ehh?

                                       Atlant

    This is a very interesting discussion which has been held in several
    different forums - I'm not sure how it relates to the current topic
    however - but there have always been two different opinions on this.
    
    All I know is that those who oppose the bombing of Japan state that we
    could have invaded and not killed so many Japanese and brought the war
    to the same end.  This may or may not be true, but it ignores two basic
    issues.  Japan attacked Pearl Harbor thus declaring war on America, we
    did not declare war on Japan until then.  Second, if I was one of those
    scheduled to invade Japan, knowing that thousands of Americans would
    die in the effort, me included, I would have supported any means
    necessary to avoid that option.
    
    I will always be very cavalier about sending as many of my declared
    enemies to their God, but will cherish any American life.  This was as
    clear an example as I can imagine.
    

    
>    This goes back a few notes but is rather interesting in debunking the
>    "wage-gap" issue so often touted as evidence of rampant discrimination
>    against women.
>    
>    Micheal Lynch and Katherine Post published a detailed study of
>    comparative wages in the summer edition of The Public Interest.  They
    
    
    http://www.ideas.org/pressrel/sheet/95-11.html
    
    Interesting reading, it certainly fits with my life experience (I'm
    37).
    
    Greg
    

    Atlant:
    
    I will get you the page out of the Truman biography by his daughter.
    He started to investigate the spending of big $$ on something when he
    was a senator and was somehow disuaded.
    
    You made the assertions about Ike, MacArthur etc. YOU prove them!
    I know the game well. You make an assertion as fact and then demand
    that someone else who disagrees with you prove you wrong.
    
    I will compare my WWII library with yours any time and you will lose.
    
    =====================================================================
    
    But back to the subject at hand:
    
    Twins, a boy and girl grow up and want to get a job etc and one is told
    that their higher test score is not good enough and that the other one
    gets the job. Please tell me how you justify that? Rember, they are
    brother and sister...
    
    Steve

    RE: .194  Steve Keith
    
    > Twins, a boy and girl grow up and want to get a job etc and one is told
    > that their higher test score is not good enough and that the other one
    > gets the job. Please tell me how you justify that? Rember, they are
    > brother and sister...
    
    You simply tell the sister that her higher score is not yet enough
    to overcome thousands of years of our species making the presumption
    that women are 'less' than men (no matter what their scores happen
    to be), but we're working on changing this.
    
    As long as those who fight AA do it on the basis that women and
    minorities are 'less' than the white males they compete with,
    we need it.

    
    re .195
    
>    As long as those who fight AA do it on the basis that women and
>    minorities are 'less' than the white males they compete with,
>    we need it.
    
    More proof that just because you can punch it into a computer file
    doesn't necessarily make it true.  Where have _any_ of us who have 
    opposed AA or EEO said in any way shape or form that we oppose them on
    the basis that women are 'less' than men?  Or do you really mean 
    that womemen really are incapable of making it on their own merrits 
    without some government program?
    
    fred();

    The main theme of the notes against AA (invariably) seems to be
    that the women and minorities are less qualified than white males.

    If we lived in a world that wasn't already so heavily prejudiced,
    women and minorities would easily make it on their own merits.

    As long as the prejudices against women and minorities exist,
    we can't simply pretend that they don't exist (as if white males
    control most things in our culture because they deserve to be
    in charge.)  We have to do something about it.

    Something funny - some conservatives preach over and over and over 
    and over that government is NOT the answer to our problems, but
    when the problems they dislike come up, they BLAME the government
    (big time!) for not solving them!  Apparently, it depends on whose
    problems are being discussed.

    
>    The main theme of the notes against AA (invariably) seems to be
>    that the women and minorities are less qualified than white males.
    
    We must not be reading the same notes then.  My main contention 
    has been that if what these groups desire is _equality_, shifting
    the discrimintation to another group sure seems to be a stange
    way of achieving it.  Also that as long as these government 
    programs, quotas, reverse-discriminations exist, it will likely
    be hard to convince people that anyone from these groups are being 
    given the job becuse of their merrit.
    
>    If we lived in a world that wasn't already so heavily prejudiced,
>    women and minorities would easily make it on their own merits.
    
    Don't know what world you live in, but in the one I'm in the scales
    are tipped heavily in foavor of women.  Although there do seem to
    be many who would perpetuate that victimhood in order to maintain
    the handouts.  It more appears that those are the ones who are
    saying that women cannot make it on their own merrits without the
    continued tipping of the scales in their favor.
    
>    As long as the prejudices against women and minorities exist,
>    we can't simply pretend that they don't exist (as if white males
>    control most things in our culture because they deserve to be
>    in charge.)  We have to do something about it.
    
    There have been many other groups make it on their own merrit:
    Irish, Italian, Greek, Eastern European, even British at one
    time.  I don't hear many Asians complaining about how discriminated
    against they are.  They even catch the brunt of discrimianteion from
    other minorities, yet Asians seem to be doing quite well for 
    themselves.
    
    fred();

    
>    You simply tell the sister that her higher score is not yet enough
>    to overcome thousands of years of our species making the presumption
>    that women are 'less' than men (no matter what their scores happen
>    to be), but we're working on changing this.
    
    If you have any evidence of this being true today I'd love to see it
    and you would go a long way towards convincing me that AA based on gender
    should stay around.  Do you have any current examples where higher
    score females have been turned away for lesser score males?  Or that
    the hiring rate of women is lower than their presence in the applicant
    pool for jobs?
    
    The opposite do exist and are easy to find.  Court cases challenging AA
    for schools and government departments (fire, police, etc) have shown
    that to get hired today a white male (on average) has to seriously out
    perform women and african-americans (on average).  This is not talking
    about 25-50 years ago when blatant discrimination against women and
    african-americans was rampant but today.  It takes us to the sets of
    twins ... there are court cases that show the 22 year-old male will
    have a tougher time (given similar qualifications) getting into state
    medical schools, state law schools, fire departments, police
    department, etc.  Where is your evidence that the 22 year-old women has
    a tougher time given similar qualifications today?                
                           
    Greg
    

    
    re .199
    
>    Our society is still controlled (overwhelmingly) by white males.
>    Even the best government program isn't enough to topple a system
>    that's been in place for thousands of years in Western Civilization.
    
    So it appears you are saying that _in_ _spite_ _of_ government
    programs designed to prevent men from succeeding they still do, 
    and _in_ _spite_ _of_ the best govenment programs and lower
    standards for women than form men, women _still_ can't succeed, 
    then just who is it who is saying women are inferior?  Could it be 
    that so many are depending on the government programs rather than 
    depending on developing their own merrits?
    
>    Our society is still controlled (overwhelmingly) by white males.
>    Even the best government program isn't enough to topple a system
>    that's been in place for thousands of years in Western Civilization.
    
>    If our culture was fair, women and minorities could make it on their
>    own easily.  Our culture isn't fair, though.
    
    With all these government programs in place, how can you claim that
    society isn't being fair to women?  Or are they just not being 
    unfair enough to men to suit you?
    
    So, women have how been admitted to the Citidel.  Any bets on how
    long it will take them to deman women's-only xxxx, and lower admission
    and physical standards?
    
    fred();

    Our society is still controlled (overwhelmingly) by white males.
    Even the best government program isn't enough to topple a system
    that's been in place for thousands of years in Western Civilization.
    
    As for the Irish, British, Italians, etc., they men were all white 
    males, so they blended in after the first generation or so.  African 
    American males haven't had this opportunity.  (They aren't white.)
    
    If our culture was fair, women and minorities could make it on their
    own easily.  Our culture isn't fair, though.

    As for Asians, they come to this country from societies where people
    work many, many, many more hours than people work in Western countries.
    They tend to do well here, but they'd do even better (given the extent
    of their efforts) if our culture wasn't so prejudiced.

    RE: .201  Fred

    > So it appears you are saying that _in_ _spite_ _of_ government
    > programs designed to prevent men from succeeding they still do, 

    Government programs are designed to give women and minorities a
    chance in situations where they 'need not have applied' before.
    (Just as Irish and Italian men were eventually allowed into jobs
    they were sent away from seeking when they first came to this
    country, it's long past time to give women and people of color
    these opportunities as well.)
    
    White males have (in many areas) around 85% of the best jobs in
    this country even though white males are less than 35% of the
    entire population of the United States.  Before you get carried
    away with the idea that white males ought to be called 'a minority',
    though, please remember that the white males in South Africa were
    a much *smaller* percentage of the population when they controlled
    South Africa unfairly.

    White males used to have very nearly 100% of all the decent jobs in
    this country.  Qualified women and minorities 'need not have applied' 
    back then (because an African American woman with 10 PhDs couldn't 
    get a job over a white male with a high school diploma or one little
    Bachelors degree.)  Things have improved since those days, but
    our society still often tends to treat women and minorities badly.
    
    > So it appears you are saying...
    > and _in_ _spite_ _of_ the best govenment programs and lower
    > standards for women than form men, women _still_ can't succeed,

    Please cease making unfounded accusations towards me.  I've never 
    said that women can't succeed.  Women can (and do!!) succeed.

    The white male control still exists anyway, though, because
    it's been in place for hundreds of years in this country (and
    thousands of years in Western Civilization).  It's not something
    that can be changed in 148 years (which is when the women's
    movement started), and it can't be changed by specific individuals.
     
    > then just who is it who is saying women are inferior?  

    If you're accusing me of saying this, it's absolutely unfounded 
    (and I'll shoot it 'right back at ya'.)
    
    Women have succeeded in this country in spite of the bigotry that
    so many women and minorities have faced (and it's to women's
    credit that so many have managed to do well in spite of the
    institutionalized prejudice that poisons this country so badly.)

    > Could it be that so many are depending on the government programs 
    > rather than depending on developing their own merrits?

    It's spelled 'merits', Fred, and usually, women and minorities need
    quite a few MORE merits to succeed in a world dominated by white
    males who are presumed (by default) to be superior to those with
    dark skin or female sexual organs.

    Even among white males, I've heard some white males with 2 year
    college degrees scoff at the value of a white male with a 4 year
    MIT degree (as if it shouldn't matter.)  The 2 year diploma guy
    is just as white and just as male, so it ought to be enough,
    apparently.

    If the 2 year diploma guy came up against a woman with a Masters
    degree and lost a job to her, he'd probably rail to the heavens
    that she only got the job because she's a woman.
    
    > With all these government programs in place, how can you claim that
    > society isn't being fair to women?  Or are they just not being 
    > unfair enough to men to suit you?
    
    The government programs can only open some doors for women and
    minorities (in areas where 'women and minorities need not have
    applied' earlier.)   Society still treats women and minorities
    badly at times (as part of a long and shameful tradition of doing 
    so in this country.)

    > So, women have how been admitted to the Citidel.  Any bets on how
    > long it will take them to deman women's-only xxxx, and lower admission
    > and physical standards?

    Every year, hundreds of women go to the American military academies
    (West Point, Air Force Academy, etc.)   Now women can go to the
    Citadel, too (and they are being greeted warmly by this school now,
    too.)

    Learn to live with it.

    At this point, I should also mention that I've had some wonderful
    experiences working with coworkers in the predominantly-male 
    occupations I've held through my adult life (and most of my best 
    experiences have been right here at Digital.)

    If you don't know what it's like to live in a species which
    (in general) devalues the color of your skin or the nature
    of your sexual organs when it comes to trusting you in the
    workforce, it's probably not easy to understand the context 
    of the *cultural* situation faced by many women and minorities 
    in this country.

    To their credit, a growing number of caucasian males DO understand
    it now, and they're wonderful, wonderful allies for the rest of us.

    Alant
    
    Page 238 of TRUMAN by his daughter. It tells of him learning of the
    bomb after he was swornin as pres. This is but one example.
    
    Suzzanne: Go back to the twins: Tell me what you tell the boy as to why
    he is not admitted to a college when his sister is EVEV if he has
    higher test scores. HE DID NOTHING WRONG! HE DID HIS BEST
    
    Using the AA theory, should my son get extra points over a female
    because he went to a HS in a poorer town? His education was/is not as
    good as some females who went to richer towns.
    
    The arguments are truely unfounded for the twins example or most others
    too. Your true agenda shows the more riled you get. Down with white
    males in any position of power because of this feminist hated of
    perceived patriachy.
    
    Steve

    
    re .204
    
    Ditto on the agenda showing.  
    fred();

    
    If current reverese discrimination can be justified on the basis
    of past deeds by other men, then is it not justified to base
    discrimination of women on Eve causing the fall of man from Grace?
    Or is an argument valid only if it supports your agenda?
    
    fred();

    .203
    
    You keep making statements that you do not support.  You keep claiming
    that there is this rampant discrimination, but provide no support other
    than your statement.  When you do reference anything close to details
    you refer to circumstances decades or centuries ago.  You never
    identify the current status, other than by inference.
    
    As I identified, the wages earned by IDENTICAL workers, based on age,
    senority, education, area of concentration, etc, is the same.  This
    would seem to indicate that the so-called wage-gap is non-existant.  It
    also would seem to indicate that similarly qualified people are
    accepted into the workforce equally.
    
    If you have information that is current, that refutes this, I would be
    interested in seeing it.  Otherwise claims to the contrary are just
    biased opinions based on prejudice, not fact.
    

Fred:

  Tha argument is only valid for religious fundamentalists.
  Many of us don't believe (either literally or, in some case
  at all) in the story of Adam and Eve, Serpent and apple.

                                   Atlant

> As I identified, the wages earned by IDENTICAL workers, based on age,
> senority, education, area of concentration, etc, is the same.  This
> would seem to indicate that the so-called wage-gap is non-existant.  It
> also would seem to indicate that similarly qualified people are
> accepted into the workforce equally.

  You've already been given this information many times and
  in many different ways. And I'll even accept as true the
  extremely narrow statement you just made:

    the wages earned by IDENTICAL workers, based on
    age, senority, education, area of concentration,
    etc, is the same.


  Unfortunately, you're missing the much bigger picture. In many,
  many jobs, the genders are still not proportionally represented.

  (Return with us to the earlier discussion of how many Fortune
  500 CEOs are women. A reminder: 0 out of 500. Then return with
  us to our previous discussion of how many women enter engineering
  schools or the engineering profession. Then, return with us to
  our earlier discussions about how schools still tend to track
  girls out of the more advanced classes in mathematics and science. ...
  Oh heck, why not just go back and re-read everything that several
  of us have posted for the last few years!)


  That there is no discrimination among people holding exactly
  the same jobs and skills is good, but not sufficient.

                                   Atlant

    
>  Tha argument is only valid for religious fundamentalists.
>  Many of us don't believe (either literally or, in some case
>  at all) in the story of Adam and Eve, Serpent and apple.
    
    Just because _you_ don't believe it doesn't necessarily make the 
    argument false.
    
    fred();

    

>Then return with
>  us to our previous discussion of how many women enter engineering
>  schools or the engineering profession. Then, return with us to
>  our earlier discussions about how schools still tend to track
>  girls out of the more advanced classes in mathematics and science. ...

    Another argument is that teachers tend to let girls get away more
    with "I can't do this---sniffle", and that "tracking" comes from
    a misguided mindset due to experience rather than prejudice.

    fred();

    
    A female, Marion Hammer, is the president of probably the most "macho"
    organization in America.
    
    fred();

> >  That argument is only valid for religious fundamentalists.
> >  Many of us don't believe (either literally or, in some case
> >  at all) in the story of Adam and Eve, Serpent and apple.
> 
> Just because _you_ don't believe it doesn't necessarily make the 
> argument false.

  No, but the fact that the argument is based on faith and
  only faith makes it non-debatable.

                                   Atlant

> a misguided mindset due to experience rather than prejudice.

  Sophistry, my dear Fred, pure sophistry.

                                   Atlant

> A female, Marion Hammer, is the president of probably the most "macho"
> organization in America.

  Wow! One piece of anecdotal evidence!

  If you had two, then they'd probably think they're both ****
  and they wouldn't take either of 'em!

  And if you had three, can you imagine three, then they might
  think it's an organization.

  And if you had fifty women a day, I say, fifty women a day
  walking up and getting a CEO job just like white men do, then
  they might think it's a movement. And that's what it would be!
  The "True Equality is Good!" movement!

  And all you've got to do to join it (the next time it comes
  around on the notesfile) is to walk up, say "Women and Men
  should have equal opportunity in all things", and walk out.

                                   Atlant

  (We're just waiting for it to come around again in the notesfile...)

    
    Psst!  Atlant, your agenda is showing.  And if you can say it often
    enough and loud enough, then it must be true, eh?
    fred();

    .209
    
    Unfortunately you are missing the big picture as well as the response
    to the information you list as "facts" of discrimination.  The fact
    that there are presently 0 out of the Fortune 500 means little if
    anything.  The example of Digital was provided to show that decisions
    are based on merit at the highest levels of corporations and pointing
    to an absence of one group proves nothing other than that the company
    did not find a qualified CEO in the group you want them to use.
    
    Using Digital as an ongoing example, Digital has always been an
    engineering company.  The latest reports show 2% of engineering school
    students are women.  That says that you have a population of 2% to find
    a CEO for an engineering comapany.  Other than a tangential reason for
    hiring a woman, the available pool of talent lies overwhelmingly with
    men.
    
    The fact that women don't enroll in engineering school has nothing to
    do with bias or prejudice.  You can be free to spin that however you
    like, but you have nothing other than personal opinion to back you up. 
    Women have the ability, as a matter of fact, an advantage over white
    males in gaining acceptance to colleges of their choice.  If they chose
    not to enroll, don't claim that there is a bias against women CEOs of
    engineering companies.
    
    The fact remains women are not significantly represented as CEOs of
    Fortune 500 companies, although disproportionately represented in
    smaller companies as the majority of new companies are women owned and
    operated, proves only that on an absolute contunuum the skills,
    experience, background, etc is not there yet.
    
    I for one have no particular feelings one way or the other as to who
    runs a company as long as the selection is made on merit and the best
    person is selected.  Choices based on any other reason are a detriment
    to society.
    
    You amy have your own axe to grind, but the facts don't support you in
    way, shape or form.
    

> The fact that there are presently 0 out of the Fortune 500
> means little if anything.

  To you, perhaps, but it speaks volumes to me. I'll even
  bet it's *SIGNIFICANTLY VALID* that 0 out of the 500
  largest corporations are headed by women. What would
  be the chance of this occurring if some discrimnatory
  factors were not operating?


> The latest reports show 2% of engineering school students
> are women.

  Are you sure about that number? I've heard rates more like
  10-15% these days. We had 2% when *I* went to engineering
  school, and I went to Geek U.


> That says that you have a population of 2% to find a CEO for
> an engineering company.

  False assumption. There's no evidence that a large corporation,
  even a large *ENGINEERING* corporation needs to be headed by
  an engineer. I don't know what Lou Gerstner's formal training
  is, but before he headed IBM, he was CEO of a cookie company.
  And they're doing noticably better, headed by their_CEO_the_
  cookie_Man than we are doing headed by our_CEO_the_chips_man.


> The fact that women don't enroll in engineering school has nothing to
> do with bias or prejudice.

  What does it have to do with, then? It's pervasive so there
  must be some reason behind it.

                                   Atlant

> > The latest reports show 2% of engineering school students
> > are women.
> 
> Are you sure about that number? I've heard rates more like
> 10-15% these days. We had 2% when *I* went to engineering
> school, and I went to Geek U.

  By the way, the rate varies widely depending on the particular
  engineering discipline. In the computer field, woman are far
  more widely represented in software engineering than in hard-
  ware engineering.
                                   Atlant

    
    Well, guys, it appears that we can't prove the point to Atlant's
    satisfaction, so we just must be wrong I guess.  Although I do
    find it rather interesting that after jumbping all over me about 
    "a statistic of one", then we are expected to believe that what is 
    happening in the Fortuen 500 to be proof that discrimination against 
    women is still rampant in America.
    
    fred();

> Well, guys, it appears that we can't prove the point to Atlant's
> satisfaction, so we just must be wrong I guess.

  Sure you COULD. But the facts and anecdotes you've cited DON'T.

  The statistics ALL seem to be running AGAINST the idea that
  men are the down-trodden gender, oppressed to the ends of
  the Earth by Evyl Womyn. You do seem to hold tightly to that
  delusion though, and that causes me much I wonderment.

                                   Atlant

    
>  The statistics ALL seem to be running AGAINST the idea that
>  men are the down-trodden gender, oppressed to the ends of
>  the Earth by Evyl Womyn. You do seem to hold tightly to that
>  delusion though, and that causes me much I wonderment.
    
    and the Fortuen 500 proves that, right?
    
    fred();

> and the Fortu[ne] 500 proves that, right?
    
  It certainly doesn't support *YOUR* theories.

                                   Atlant

    .220
    
    Boy, you are just loaded with preconceptions aren't you?  the fact that
    the Fortune 500, today, has no women CEOs is eveidence of nothing other
    than what the current state is.  I believe the earlier entry identified
    that a few of the 500 did have women CEOs but they are not presently. 
    Once again you have shown you error in logic of after the fact,
    therefore before the fact.
    
    Second IBM is considered a MARKETING company not an engineering
    company.  IBM went after a marketing type.  Digital went after an
    engineering type.  Different companies, different focus.
    
    Yes, the report I read and listed showed that 2% of engineering
    students are presently women.  YOu may not like the information, but I
    assume they based it on currently available information.  My daughter
    graduated as valedictorian, did excellently in Math and Science and had
    absolutely no interest in engineering.  She has her Bachelor's in
    Romance Languages and Economics.  Why didn't she go into engineering? 
    I don't know, but certainly not because she was directed away from the
    field by anyone.  Apparently, she just wasn't interested.
    
    You still have only your own bias propping up your contentions but no
    facts.
    

    .225
    
    There are no theories being put forward, just facts and details.  The
    AA programs identify a specific bias against white males.  this is a
    fact, not a theory.
    

    >It certainly doesn't support *YOUR* theories.
    
    And If I can't prove the point to _your_ satisfaction, then I must
    be wrong, eh?
    
    fred

> Boy, you are just loaded with preconceptions aren't you?  the fact that
> the Fortune 500, today, has no women CEOs is eveidence of nothing other
> than what the current state is.  I believe the earlier entry identified
> that a few of the 500 did have women CEOs but they are not presently. 

  Uhh, yes, the Fortune 500 *DID* have some women as CEOs. *2* out
  of 500 (for a grand total of 0.4%). But now the normal situation
  has been restored and the answer is once again *ZERO*.

  But okay, let's abandon that topic and shift gears�. Here's an-
  other example: The United States Senate has 7 women� and 93 men.
  Why are only 7% of the members of the Senate women when women
  represent about 52% of the potential electorate? What factors
  bar the election of more women?

                                   Atlant



� If no one beats me to it, I'll go jump through your hoop of
   "statistics for women in engineering", but it'll take some time.


� Barbara Boxer, D, California
  Dianne Feinstein, D, California
  Sheila Frahm, R, Kansas (new arrival!)
  Nancy Kassebaum, R, Kansas
  Barbara Mikulski, D, Maryland
  Carol Moseley-Braun, D, Illinois
  Olympia Snow, R, Maine
    
  Like the membership of the Fortune 500 CEOs, this is an objectively
  verifiable fact. See http://www.senate.gov/ .

Fred:

> And If I can't prove the point to _your_ satisfaction,
> then I must be wrong, eh?

  Why do you even bother to argue? You don't seem to be able
  to muster anything other than biblical claims and single-point
  anecdotes about how "they done you wrong".

                                   Atlant

    RE .230
    
    Where are the facts that Ike knew and Truman knew?
    
    I gave you the page in the book, and only one at that.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------
    
    Back to the subject:
    
    Should a boy from a rich town (good edu system) have points taken off
    his admission score to college so that the playing field is 'leveled'
    with a boy who comes from a poorer (edu wise) town?
    
    Steve
    

    re .229
    
>  But okay, let's abandon that topic and shift gears�. Here's an-
>  other example: The United States Senate has 7 women� and 93 men.
>  Why are only 7% of the members of the Senate women when women
>  represent about 52% of the potential electorate? What factors
>  bar the election of more women?
    
    Well, women make up 51% of the voting population, so you tell me.
    
    fred();

Steve:

> RE .230
> 
> Where are the facts that Ike knew and Truman knew?
> 
> I gave you the page in the book, and only one at that.

  I fully intend to investigate this book. And yet, I wonder
  if Truman's daughter had access to all the classified material
  that others in the Government had access to. Might good old
  Harry have kept a few things from her?


> Back to the subject:
> 
> Should a boy from a rich town (good edu system) have points taken off
> his admission score to college so that the playing field is 'leveled'
> with a boy who comes from a poorer (edu wise) town?

  The obvious answer is that the earlier stages of our educational
  system shouldn't favor the boy from the rich town. But that might
  require something beyond the local control of schools that so
  many of you on the Right seem to favor/preach.

                                   Atlant

> Well, women make up 51% of the voting population, so you tell me.

  Uh-uh!

  *I* asked the question! Besides, you know what my answer would
  be: People like you don't vote for them! :-)

                                   Atlant

    
>  Uhh, yes, the Fortune 500 *DID* have some women as CEOs. *2* out
>  of 500 (for a grand total of 0.4%). But now the normal situation
>  has been restored and the answer is once again *ZERO*.
    
    Actually I read just last week that the number is now (again?)
    two (yes, 500, not 1000).  Is this progress, or a statistical 
    anomaly?  ;-)
    
>  But okay, let's abandon that topic and shift gears�. Here's an-
>  other example: The United States Senate has 7 women� and 93 men.
>  Why are only 7% of the members of the Senate women when women
>  represent about 52% of the potential electorate? What factors
>  bar the election of more women?
    
    This _should_ be one of the more non-discriminatory, truly 
    democratic arenas available to women.  Sure, you can point to 
    election rules (I'm all in favor of election reform, and term
    limits), but that's hardly a full explanation.  Kind of like
    how in their own interests, minorities _should_ vote in larger
    numbers, but don't.
    
    Glenn
    

>  *I* asked the question! Besides, you know what my answer would
>  be: People like you don't vote for them! :-)
    
    But the most obvious answer is that women represent a very small
    minority of candidates, for whatever reason...
    
    Glenn
    

    
    Atlant,
    
    We keep coming back to the same place.
    
    In regards to their only being 7 women US senators.  Something I read a
    couple years ago showed that the percentage of women incumbants who won
    re-election was virtually identical to the percentage of males who won
    re-election.  In addition, the percentage of women challengers who won
    was virtually the same as male challengers who won.  they are less
    women candidates than men.  (IMO it's the age thing again ... I'll bet
    you lunch that as soon as folks born 1955 or later are running that at
    least 40% of the folks will be women from those cohort groups).
    
    We have the same split.  The results of the selection process seemed to
    have evened out.  Given applicants of similar backgrounds men and women
    achieve at similar rates.  I for one see this as the arrival of (close
    to) equality.  The overall numbers are still biased due to at least two
    major factors.
    
    1) The huge pipeline of "older " folks who reflect a bias that existed
    in the experiences of folks 50, 60, or 70 years old.  You and disagree
    about whether the 22 year-olds should face the ills of the past or not.
    
    2) The different selections women and men make for careers.  I believe
    Fred's 2% engineering students reflects the numbers for 1960, 1970 time
    frames.  I think it has risen to something like 25%-40%.  To me the way
    you and Suzanne argue implies that this difference is inherently caused
    by discrimination and should be addressed by government policy.   I
    could be convinced if any evidence other than "there are less females or
    females score lower (math SATs) therefore there must be discrimination"
    was presented.  BTW this works both ways; I do not think males face
    large barriers getting into daycare or early childhood education but I
    think they just don't pick it in large numbers.
    
    Greg
     

    
    
>  *I* asked the question! Besides, you know what my answer would
>  be: People like you don't vote for them! :-)
    
    Apparently women don't either.  Gail Norton, Colorado's Atty. 
    General ran for Senate this year.  She got waxed in the primary.
    And I voted _for_ her btw.
    
    fred();

    BTW soemone at the Democratic Convention was bragging that they have
    50% women deletates and xxx Black delagates and xxx Hispanic delegates.
    What they conveniently neglected to mention was that this "inclusion"
    was achieved by way of quotas set up in the delegate selection process.
    
    Also note that the delegates to the Democratic Convention are made up
    of 10% of menbers of the NEA.  A little lop-sided in that representation,
    don't you think.
    
    fred();

Greg:

> 2) The different selections women and men make for careers.  I believe
> Fred's 2% engineering students reflects the numbers for 1960, 1970 time
> frames.  I think it has risen to something like 25%-40%.  To me the way
> you and Suzanne argue implies that this difference is inherently caused
> by discrimination and should be addressed by government policy.

  I can't speak for Suzanne, only for me. In this case, aside
  from the demonstrable� "tracking" that occurs during youth,
  I don't know what accounts for the lack of women engineers.
  Nor do I know what ought to be done about it (besides educate
  people not to "track" little boys and girls). I certainly
  personally mourn the fact that so few women share my pro-
  fession; it'd be a lot easier to meet folks if we could
  start by "talking shop". :-)


> I do not think males face large barriers getting into daycare
> or early childhood education but I think they just don't pick
> it in large numbers.

  Actually, they do (face barriers), and the number one barrier
  is fear of p�dophiles. I speak with certain knowledge on this,
  haiving spoken with many elementary educators and the folks
  who manage them as well as with parents.

                                   Atlant


� Not demonstrable to the satisfaction of all, I don't doubt,
  but demonstrable to the vast majority.

    
    re .240
    
>  I can't speak for Suzanne, only for me. In this case, aside
>  from the demonstrable� "tracking" that occurs during youth,
>  I don't know what accounts for the lack of women engineers.
>  Nor do I know what ought to be done about it (besides educate
>  people not to "track" little boys and girls). I certainly
>  personally mourn the fact that so few women share my pro-
>  fession; it'd be a lot easier to meet folks if we could
>  start by "talking shop". :-)
    
    Could it be because, as I mentioned before, that kids will try
    to get out of as much work as possible (statistic of 4 ;^),
    5 counting me when I was in school ;^) ), and that parents and 
    teachers are more sympathetic to little girls that to little boys.
    
    Heck, never mind about suceeding in school.  Big Daddy Government
    will force someone to give you a job.  And if you don't have the
    liberal leaders to force Big Daddy Government  to give you a job,
    well you're just s.o.l. anyway.  Right?
    

>� Not demonstrable to the satisfaction of all, I don't doubt,
>  but demonstrable to the vast majority.
    
    Want to back this up with something, or at least tell me when the
    election was?
    
    fred();

> Apparently women don't either.  Gail Norton, Colorado's Atty. 
> General ran for Senate this year.  She got waxed in the primary.
> And I voted _for_ her btw.

  Didn't she have a little black mark on her record re: Question 2?

  Based on the evidentgender gap, "tolerance" is a qualification
  that many women require in their candidates, not an unquestioning
  cow-towing to the demands of the Religious Right.

                                   Atlant

> Want to back this up with something, or at least tell me when the
> election was?

  Nope. You're one of the people who couldn't be convinced.

                                   Atlant

    re .243
    
    >  Nope. You're one of the people who couldn't be convinced.
    
    So you not only demand everyone else prove their point to _your_
    satisfaction, but now you refuse to back up any of your unfounded
    statements.  I think you were right about one thing a while back.
    I need to spend my time debating with people who are not so 
    closed-minded.
    
    fred();

    
    
    re .242
    
>  Based on the evidentgender gap, "tolerance" is a qualification
>  that many women require in their candidates, not an unquestioning
>  cow-towing to the demands of the Religious Right.
    
    Gee, going by the argument presented in this file, I thought _gender_
    was the _only_ thing that mattered.  Could it be that gender isnt'
    the be all and end all in other areas also?  But then, I guess
    whether sexual harassment is tolerated depends on the party of
    the candidate also, huh?
    
    fred();

Fred:

> So you not only demand everyone else prove their point to _your_
> satisfaction, but now you refuse to back up any of your unfounded
> statements.

  Only for you.
                                   Atlant

    
    re .246


    >> So you not only demand everyone else prove their point to _your_
    >> satisfaction, but now you refuse to back up any of your unfounded
    >> statements.

    >  Only for you.

    Can't do it, huh?  Well, I guess the only purpose you serve this 
    argument then is as yet another example of the arrogance and 
    hypocrisy I've been talking about.

    fred();

    .229
    et al
    
    Now there you go again.  You assume that the fact that there are only 7
    members of the Senate that is is evidence of discrimination.  You also
    made the statement that people like Fred wouldn't vote for them.
    
    Once again you rignorance of facts and arrogance get in the way of
    actually saying anythin of substance or content.
    
    I consider myself "someone like Fred", and can prove that you are
    absaolutely clueless when it comes to making statements and supporting
    your position.  A few years ago Lynn Martin ran against Paul Simon in
    Illinois.  I actively supported Lynn and voted for her both in the
    primary and the general election.  I believe she would have beena an
    invaluable addition to the Senate.
    
    Unfortunately, she was not the "right kind of woman" for the NOW gang
    to support and they actively worked against her election.  So NOW and
    other women saw to it that there is one more male in the Senate and one
    less female.
    
    Oh, I believe you made some statement about the candidates position on
    issues.  In other words, the absence of women in the Senate may be
    based on factors totally unrelated to discrimination, but rather bias
    and prejudice by women against anyone who won't toe-the-line with
    feminist thinking.
    
    If this is acceptable in politics, perhaps the same factors are at work
    in the general population.
    
    You continue to provide and incedible amount of evidence that you hold
    an unsupportable position and appear to be incrediblt biased.
    
    You really need to work on that intolerance and bigotry.
    

> Unfortunately, she was not the "right kind of woman" for the NOW gang
> to support and they actively worked against her election.  So NOW and
> other women saw to it that there is one more male in the Senate and one
> less female.

  Yeah, that pesky ole' NOW expects that women ought to be
  supportive of WOMEN'S issues. And they don't support women
  who aren't! Can you IMAGINE that?

  It's so hard to understand why they don't seem to like
  women like Phyllis Schlaffly, or your buddy from Colorado,
  or Jean Kirkpatrick, or...
                                   Atlant

>  Yeah, that pesky ole' NOW expects that women ought to be
>  supportive of WOMEN'S issues. And they don't support women
>  who aren't! Can you IMAGINE that?
    
    Obviously, as with anything else, there's no consensus on what
    "supportive of women's issues" means.  NOW speaks for NOW...
    
    Glenn
    

    

>  Yeah, that pesky ole' NOW expects that women ought to be
>  supportive of WOMEN'S issues. And they don't support women
>  who aren't! Can you IMAGINE that?

    So, once again, you state that qualifications for Senate depend
    on things _other_ than the gender of the candidate.  Will you
    make up your mind already.

    fred();

    .249
    
    Thank you for proving my point.  People make decisions every day with
    regard to who they hire, fire, elect, etc.  The presence or absence of
    one group is not evidence of discrimination.  It may be related to many
    other factors, none of which ahve to do with race, gender, etc.
    
    Gee, I wonder what would happen if they imposed the AA requirements on
    elective office?  Perhaps Lynn Martin would be in the Senate right now
    and Paul Simon would be at home.  I think a lot of feminists would be
    really upset about that and raise a real stink about blind AA quotas.
    
    You still can't support your basic contention no matter how much you
    try to claim sexist discrimination is rampant.  Please provide more
    examples so your bigotry can be further exposed.
    

    As very evident in discussions about AA, some people have made
    the very wild (and totally unsupported) assumption that grade
    school girls are given special privileges, or whatever.

    Studies have shown that teachers pay more attention to the boys
    (and give them more encouragement.)

    The harsh reality that girls face is that they need to be more
    qualified than the boys to compete with them later in life.

    Whatever the girls do, some of the boys will grow up with the idea
    that the government hands *everything to women* (which is the most
    preposterous and totally unsupported notion I've ever heard in my 
    entire life.)

    Rocush, if people in here started accusing you (directly) of
    bigotry, there would be hell to pay for it (and you know it.)
    
    So ease up and stick to the issues.
    

    BTW Atlant:
    
    In "The Two Ocean War" by Samuel Elliot Morrison (commissioned to
    write the naval history of WWII), he writes that even after the
    surrender announcement to his subjects, the Emperor had to send members
    of his royal family to different military bases to prevent them from
    resisting the landing of Americans on Japanese soil. Kamakazi (sp)
    pilots from one base had vowed to crash the USS Missouri when it
    entered Tokyo harbor for the surrender ceremonies.
    
    So much for them being ready to surrender...
    
    =====================================================================
    
    Now back to our regulary scheduled program.
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    

     First Day of School For Boston Latin Student Who
     Challenged Racial Quotas

     By Associated Press, 08/29/96

     BOSTON (AP) - A white eighth-grader who won a
     court battle to attend the prestigious Boston
     Latin School after she was denied admission
     because of her race was calm as she prepared for
     her first day of classes today.

     ``She seems unbelievably relaxed,'' said Michael
     McLaughlin, an attorney who represented his
     daughter, 13-year-old Julia, in her federal
     lawsuit charging the city with reverse
     discrimination.

     Julia McLaughlin, who had attended private school,
     was turned away from the Latin School despite
     scoring as well as, or better than, 103 black and
     Hispanic students on her entrance exam. The public
     high school sets aside 35 percent of its seats for
     blacks and Hispanics.

     ``My daughter believes that if she wins the race,
     she gets the medal,'' Michael McLaughlin told the
     Boston Herald.

     McLaughlin's lawsuit is still awaiting trial, but
     last week a federal judge ordered the school to
     admit her, saying she had a likelihood of winning
     the case.

     The man who made the decision, U.S. District Court
     Judge W. Arthur Garrity, is the same judge who
     ordered the city's schools desegregated in 1974.
     That move, which forced 45,000 students to take
     buses to school, led to riots by angry whites and
     an eventual white exodus from the public school
     system.

     Garrity's order does not immediately affect any
     other students, but it could pave the way for a
     change in the way the city attempts to ensure
     racial diversity among its schools.

     Schools Superintendent Thomas Payzant is
     considering proposing a new system, this one based
     on where people live and how much money they make,
     to the school committee. Garrity suggested a
     lottery among students with high scores on the
     entrance exam.

     Boston Latin School is one of three elite public
     schools in the city that require the entrance
     exams, and the one with the most illustrious
     history.

     Founded in 1635, its alumni include Benjamin
     Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Ralph Waldo
     Emerson, Leonard Bernstein, four presidents of
     Harvard University and four Massachusetts
     governors.

     AP-DS-08-29-96 0710EDT

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or
video material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed
directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
Materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a
computer except for personal and non-commercial use.The
AP will not be held liable for any delays,
inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or
for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

>    Studies have shown that teachers pay more attention to the boys
>    (and give them more encouragement.)
    
    Studies have shown that most of the teachers are women, so who do
    we shoot?
    
    Glenn
    

    Boys get the most attention because they make the most noise and
    the most behavior problems in a given school.
    
    Boys get the most encouragement because they virtually elbow
    the girls out of their way (even though girls mature faster
    than boys and tend to be more conscientious students than
    boys.)
    
    But, let's not shoot the little boys of this country.
    
    Let's keep in mind that we're throwing away a huge portion
    of our brain trust in this society when we treat women
    and minorities as if they don't have a huge intellectual
    contribution to make here (because they do.)

    .258
    
    Nonsense.  Being a behavior problem gets you more attention, but
    certainly does nothing to improve your scholarship.  Behavior problems
    tend to get moved to the back of the room, sent to the office, etc.  It
    does not lead to more educational attention.
    
    As has been stated previously the majority of educators, particularly
    in the lower grades, are women.  Are you making the statement that
    women unfairly discriminate against females for the benefit of males? 
    If so, your argument would be with the ones doing the discriminating,
    not the recipients thereof.
    
    As far as your comment about personal attacks goes, let me quote from a
    popular TV program, "excuse me, kettle, your black."  YOur personal
    attacks are legend and you have the arrogance to accuse someone else?
    
    Also, FYI when someone repeatedly makes unsupported generalizations
    about an entire group, I believe that is considered bias or bigotry. 
    If I am misusing the definition, please provide the working definition
    you would prefer.  We can go down that rathole for a while.
    

        re .258

>    Boys get the most encouragement because they virtually elbow
>    the girls out of their way (even though girls mature faster
>    than boys and tend to be more conscientious students than
>    boys.)

    Oh brother,  now it's little boys that are the problem.  It's
    always somebody else's fault, isn't is Suzanne.  You apparently 
    have not met my daughter or any of her friends yet.  I thought
    one things teachers were in a classroom for was to maintain order.
    If what you say is happening is happening, someone isn't doing their
    job, and as pointed out earlier, most of these teachers are women.
    
    Maybe little boys are like they are because they haven't yet
    started to think with their sex organs instead of their brains.

    fred();

    
    On another note.  Has anyone else noticed that out of all the women
    that ol' Bill had the "security guards" "invite" up to his room
    to give him oral sex, only one has complained about it.  I have to
    find out what his secret is ;^).

    fred();

    Rocush, if you want to trade accusations of bigotry and other
    personal insults, we can probably get into a good war here. 

    Or you can try sticking to the issues.

    As for boys being a behavior problem, they don't send all the noisy
    and disruptive boys to the office (because most school offices
    simply aren't big enough.) 

    So teachers learn that if they involve the boys in the classroom
    work, they can keep most of them from becoming distracted and
    disruptive.

    The teachers are stuck with the societal situation that is far
    bigger than the classroom or the school they're in - they have
    to deal with the situations they're given in our species.

    If they must give boys extra attention to keep order in the classroom,
    they have little choice but to do it.

    We need to fix the problems in society so that they aren't permeated
    in almost every area of our culture.

    By the way, Rocush, you haven't supported your claims about women
    being 2% of Engineering and/or MBA students.
    
    Until you provide an ironclad reference (from a reputable source),
    you're simply making unsupported statements about this.
    

    
    re .262
    
>    The teachers are stuck with the societal situation that is far
>    bigger than the classroom or the school they're in - they have
>    to deal with the situations they're given in our species.
    
    So the teacher's are victims?  Of who?  What social programs have
    changed this situation since the days when Miss Workington didn't give 
    two hoots and a holler about "social situations".  If you were in
    her class room you'd *&^% well better sit up and pay attention.  She 
    had to teach _three_ classes simultaneously, and by the time I got to
    the third grade I didn't need yet another government program to
    teach me to read.
    
    Thank you Miss Workington,
    fred();

    .262
    
    OK, but you lose before it begins.
    
    Also, you really don't have a clue about classroom procedures in
    elementary schools.  I have first hand knowledge through my daughter
    who has been apublic school teacher for six years.
    
    First of all, girls, particularly in the lower grades are just as
    disruptive as boys and represent just as much of a behavior problem as
    boys.  Second, boys are not given extra attention from an academic
    standpoint because they misbehave.  They are removed from the group and
    isolated.  They are given separate work to process on their own.  In
    many cases they tend to fall further behind because the teacher is
    working with the rest of the class and the behavior problem is
    separated.
    

    .263
    
    Please read my earlier entry that identified the source of my comment. 
    It was not unfounded nor based on circumstances in prior generations
    nor historical references.  It was based on a recently concluded study
    and published.
    
    You can check the information and tear into the report as much as you
    like, but as far as I know this is much more a reputable source than
    many of the claims you have entered.
    
    If you have information identifiying a significantly different % (from
    a reputable source) please identify it.  Otherwise you're simply making
    unsupported statements about this.
    

    Rocush, please cite the specific (reputable) report, page numbers
    included, again.
    
    I'm not going to go hunt for some 'earlier reply' of yours.
    
    Thank you.

    Rocush, my best friend is a school teacher.  I probably spend more
    time talking to her than you spend talking to your daughter on
    a weekly/daily basis.
    

    re .268
    
    Well, if he _already_ provided the information, why should he now
    provide it again?  How many times?
    
    fred();

    .266
    Uh, "Excuse me, kettle, you're black."
    
    Since I went to a parochial school I had no government program to teach
    me how to read.  I also was in a class of 52 students and surprisingly
    every student did quite well and discipline was maintained quite well.
    
    If the first government program is incompetent, then of course, we need
    a second government program to make up for the incompetence of the
    first government program.  When this doesn't work and severl 100
    billion dollars have been spent on it, will he have yet a third reading
    rpogram established to correct the deficiencies in the first two?
    

    No, Fred, the only victims in this entire country are the men who
    think precisely as you do.
    
    Now such men can stop being so bleeping concerned about who gets 
    to be the victim (because it's not something that the rest of us
    think about every single second of the day.)
    
    And by the way, if you went to public school, then a government
    program did teach you to read.
    

    Where is this information, though?
    
    If he's provided it already, he can provide a pointer to it.
    
          

    Rocush, who accused you of going to public school?  No one.
    

    re .276
    
    Why should he?  How many times berore you are satisfied?  No the 
    rules have changed that we not only have to provide backup, but we
    have to provide _multiple_ times?
    
    fred();

    .268
    
    Apparently you haven't followed all of this string.  But to make things
    easy for you it was note .171.  Feel free to examine the report, I
    don't have it.
    
    Also, you make one heck of an assumption about how much time I spend
    talking with my daughter.  Your arrogance is boundless.  In addition,
    if your friend is promoting sex bias in her treatment of students
    something should be done about it.  don't complain that one groups get
    more attention and not complain about those, like your friend, who are
    giving the extra attention and supporting and encouraging negative
    behavior.
    

    
    re .277
    
    >    Rocush, who accused you of going to public school?  No one.
    
    BTW, I said _another_ government program.
    
    fred();

    Rocush, where is your reference to a reputable source?
    
    This is the one I'm interested in seeing.
    

    
    re .266
    
>    No, Fred, the only victims in this entire country are the men who
>    think precisely as you do.
>    
>    Now such men can stop being so bleeping concerned about who gets 
>    to be the victim (because it's not something that the rest of us
>    think about every single second of the day.)
    
    Do you want to provide some statistics or evidence to back this up?
    Or is it just another one of those off hand personal attacks you
    appear to engage in when you have no more argument?
    
    fred();

    Well, I'm going to let Atlant take over again.
    
    I can't keep up with the whining mail generated at me for this
    topic (even though this is not my work hours.)
    
    See you folks later.
    

    
    re .283
    
>    I can't keep up with the whining mail generated at me for this
>    topic (even though this is not my work hours.)
    
    Oh! Good argument Suzanne!  Thanks again for the example!
    
    fred();

        re .281
    
        And who gets to judge what a "reputable source" is?
        fred();
     

    The whining from the man in mail sounds so unmacho (compared to the
    great bravado he uses while railing at me in this topic.)
    
    How strange.

    
    re .287

    So men who complain "whine".  We are supposed to be "macho" when
    attacked unfairly.   What is it women who are complaining about all 
    this "victimization" doing?  Your agenda is showing.

    fred();

    Just in case it looks like I'm saying that anyone who complains
    about anything in life is 'whining', I'll make something clear:
    
    The men who rail at women in this file and then whine behind the 
    scenes that *they're* being 'insulted' (when the women fight back) 
    are whining.
    
    You don't see the women in here writing to men in this topic to ask 
    the men to delete their notes left and right.
    

    
    re .289
    
>    You don't see the women in here writing to men in this topic to ask 
>    the men to delete their notes left and right.
     
    No women just demand discriminatory laws against men be passed.
    fred();

    
    Suzanne,
    
    Here is what I believe is the reference to the web site with the info.
    This includes the infamous 2% number for grads from the 1960 or 1970
    timeframe; folks who who be CEO age these days.  
    
>    Note 238.193
>    http://www.ideas.org/pressrel/sheet/95-11.html
    
    Greg
    
    

  Actually, it's hardly worth battling. They say "2%!"; Reliable
  national surveys say they're wrong and the answer is more like
  16% with some individual engineering schools reporting that
  female enrollment is up near 25%. They say "Nahh nahh --
  Prove it more!"

  (Yes, I know you haven't said that in this particular instance.
  But that's your standard m.o. for all of these debates, so I'm
  sure we could count on it being played out here too.)

  What's the point?

  Sometimes, it's the best kindness to merely allow people to
  remain in their present state, self-deluded though it may be.
  And it seems like there's just two or three guys dominating
  the discussion in this fashion, so why not just say "The heck
  with them!"

  If someone like Greg Yannekis wants to have a sensible
  discussion, that's fine. We can do that. If we want to
  discuss the finer points of who knew what about the bomb,
  fine too. But this "PROVE IT MORE!" stuff is just ****
  that I think I'll find it just as easy to ignore as to
  satisfy.

  I'm not discriminating against any of you, BTW. It's just
  that I don't believe you've had enough years debating in
  a factual, logical, and unemotional way to be able to suc-
  ceed in this environment. I'm sure the problem will correct
  itself in a few generations.
                                   Atlant

Fred:

> No women just demand discriminatory laws against men be passed.

  Like the ERA?

                                   Atlant

    
    Atlant,

    I haven't done any significance testing in awhile but my position on the
    lack of CEOs is based on the idea that the current outcome does not show
    a statistical significant bias against women. 

    I have to make two assumptions for this.  First, 50 folks are qualified
    for each CEO position in the Fortune 500. Second, 5% of the qualified
    folks are women (it's very different for those under 40-45 but we're
    talking about 50-60 year olds).  So all men CEOs means something like
    the following.
                                                      
    GROSS NUMBERS
            	 Men	Women   Total
    Hired        500       0     500
    Rejects    23250    1250   24500
    Total      23750	1250   25000


    PERCENTAGES
    		 Men	Women   Total
    Hired	   2%	   0%     2%
    Rejected	  98%	 100%    98%

    I doubt that is a significant difference and I'd guess the 5% women is too
    high for folks 50-60 years old; it the true number is lower the gap is
    even lower.
    
    Again, I could easily be pursuaded with data at this level that shows
    the bias.
    
    Take care,
    Greg
    

    re .292
    

>  I'm not discriminating against any of you, BTW. It's just
>  that I don't believe you've had enough years debating in
>  a factual, logical, and unemotional way to be able to suc-
>  ceed in this environment. I'm sure the problem will correct
>  itself in a few generations.
    
    So, discriminattion against women must be corrected _now_, with
    discriminatory laws againt men if necessary to "correct" the situation,
    but any discrimination against men is just "whining" and men must
    "wait a few generatios" for it to correct itself.  Typical.
    
    fred();

    
    re .293
    
    >  Like the ERA?
    
    Oh so this is your idea of an "acceptable debating style"?
    Actually I was thinking more about EEO and AA, "sexual harassment",
    etc.
    
    Also note that it was _women_ who killed ERA when they found out how
    much _they_ would have to give up as a result.  Like child custody
    for instance?
    
    fred();

    .281
    
    Are you saying the folks who did the study and the publication in which
    it appears are not reputable?  On exactly what do you base that
    assertion?  Is it that you don't like the information and therefore the
    source is unreliable?
    
    At least this is current information and not based on an opinion about
    what something was like 100 years ago.
    

    Atlant:
    
    If you are hurting my child, as a good parent I will fight you tooth
    and nail to the best of my abilities. I would not be a resonable parent
    had I not resisted.
    
    Can you comprehend this? Can you understand that what you are preaching
    is PUNITIVE action against people you don't know, don't care to know
    and who have done NOTHING to justify this treatment.
    
    As far as debating, on the issues I have used RE the bomb, you have
    used speculation and guesses that fit your model, I have used
    references to published authors. Who needs debating lessons?
    
    BTW: What about the girl in Boston Latin? Should she give up her seat
    to a more minor minority?
    
    Steve

    .292
    
    If, indeed, enrollments are up today over the timeframe in the study,
    which I understood to be relatively current, then I would expect to see
    a significant change in the makeup of CEOs, etc over the next 20 - 30
    years as these people gain the experience and background necessary to
    be an effective CEO.
    
    If you see this as still unfair treatment then obviously you have a
    completely different problem, but it has nothing to do with fair and
    equal treatment not equality.
    

>    don't complain that one groups get
>    more attention and not complain about those, like your friend, who are
>    giving the extra attention and supporting and encouraging negative
>    behavior.
    
    In fairness to Suzanne's friend, it's purely supposition that her
    teacher friend is actually doing so, because it wasn't Suzanne's 
    friend that was backed into a corner on the matter of exactly whom 
    it is that "society is forcing" to teach in this fashion.
    
    Glenn
     

    OBTW, your earlier reference to NOW supporting the case against the
    all-girls school.  The reason they are doing so is to make sure that an
    all-boys school will not be approved.  They are not doing it because
    they believe it is unfair and improper to have a single sex school. 
    they want to make sure that an all-boys school will not open up.
    
    This is exactly my point.  NOW is not interested in seeing that all
    people are treated fair and equality is achieved.  They are only
    interested in insuring that their members get what they want,
    regardless of the effect on anyone else.
    

    .300
    
    I didn't raise the issue of her friend until she did, while at the same
    time making unfounded statements about my daughter and myself.
    
    If her friend is being forced to conduct her classes in a certain
    fashion then she should raise the issue and not merely state that
    that's the way it is.
    

    
>    I didn't raise the issue of her friend until she did, while at the same
>    time making unfounded statements about my daughter and myself.
    
    I'm joking (a little), being facetious.  Just as Atlant was with his 
    comment on how we should just wait a few generations for our debating 
    skills to improve... ;-)
    
    glenn
    

Greg:

  Another way to analyze it might be to consider your hypothetical
  population and subject the CEO selection to random chance. For
  each event of "Choose a male CEO", your population assumes a
  95% probability (19 men, 1 woman -> 95% chance of choosing the
  man).

  Across 500 events, the probability of *NO* women being chosen
  is 0.95^500 = 7 parts per trillion�! That is, there's a
  7.27*10E-12 probability of this situation occuring by
  random chance.

  For the case of one female CEO among the 500, if I remember my
  probability and statistics correctly, it's 500*(.05^1 * .95^499) =
  191 parts per trillion�.

  For the case of two female CEOs, it's 125250*(.05^2 * .95^498) =
  2523 parts per trillion�.

  Those are pretty improbable events, yet here we have them as
  the actual state of affairs. That suggests to me that there's
  something more systemic going on.

  I don't remember how to turn this probability into an expected
  mean or median number of female CEOs except by brute force, and
  the brute force calculation requires more bits than my computer
  has. But it ought to be right in the neighborhood of 0.95 * 500 =
  25. :-)
                                   Atlant



� This is really a generalization of the formula used in the
  subsequent examples of one an two CEOs. Fully expanded, the
  formula would be:

    1*(.05^0 * .95^500) = 7.27 parts-per-trillion

    
� I may have made a fence-post (off by 1) error in my co-efficients
  (500, 125250, etc.). ("1" is correct. :-) )  But if that error
  did occur, it won't have affected the outcome for these low-
  probability cases very much. It certainly doesn't affect the
  "order of magnitude", which is still parts per trillion or
  parts per billion.

Fred:

> So, discriminattion against women must be corrected _now_, with
> discriminatory laws againt men if necessary to "correct" the situation,
> but any discrimination against men is just "whining" and men must
> "wait a few generatios" for it to correct itself.  Typical.

  Actually, you should recognize this proposal as it's exactly
  what you've offered the women.

  Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, don't you know? :-)

                                   Atlant

fred:

  You've made this claim many times, but I've yet to see any
  substantiation.

  As I recall the proximate cause of the ERA's loss was the
  fact that a minority of the state legislatures failed to
  confirm it. I also recall that many (likely all) of these
  state legislatures were firmly dominated by men.

  You may argue that it was female constituents' letters that
  caused the men to vote the way they did, but I think you'd
  better have strong facts before you try that argument.

                                   Atlant

> Can you comprehend this? Can you understand that what you are preaching
> is PUNITIVE action against people you don't know, don't care to know
> and who have done NOTHING to justify this treatment.

  Actually, I know *ME* rather well, and I'm a white male who
  is probably affected by Affirmative Action. But I still think
  it's a good thing.

  By the way, my son is a white male, also.

  Can I comprehend this? Why yes, I believe I can!

                                   Atlant

    
>  Actually, you should recognize this proposal as it's exactly
>  what you've offered the women.

    You  are once again reversing cause and effect in order to try to make
    a point.  It was _women_ particularly in this notes file who  were
    complaining, the displaying their own bias by accusing men of "whining"
    when they complain.

    I have _never_ said women were "whining" about injustice.  I do have
    some problems, however, with some of the so-called "solutions" demanded.

    fred();

ROCUSH:

> OBTW, your earlier reference to NOW supporting the case against the
> all-girls school.  The reason they are doing so is to make sure that an
> all-boys school will not be approved.  They are not doing it because
> they believe it is unfair and improper to have a single sex school. 

  Logic error detected!

    o NOW opposes an all-girls school (their assertion)

    o NOW opposes an all-boys school (your assertion, which I'll grant you)


  There are only two human sexes which we can call "boys" and "girls".

    o Therefore, NOW opposes all single-sex schools.


> They are not doing it because they believe it is unfair and
> improper to have a single sex school.  [T]hey want to make
> sure that an all-boys school will not open up.

  The first sentence I quoted above is therefore logically invalid.
  The second statement is true, but seems to me to be only a half-
  truth, deliberately omitting that half of the truth that destroys
  your main thesis.  
                                   Atlant

    
>  You may argue that it was female constituents' letters that
>  caused the men to vote the way they did, but I think you'd
>  better have strong facts before you try that argument.
    
    I seriously doubt that I can ever prove the point to your satisfaction.
    All it took was the opposition of a few women for ERA to fold.  I
    was there.  I saw it happen.  I supported ERA for the same reasons
    they opposed it.
    
    fared();

fred:

  You're missing my point, or trying to deflect it.

  You're ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY the one that says we can
  solve discrimination (without any reverse discrimination)
  if we'd just wait long enough.

  I've shown you that this is mathematically improbably in
  any non-infinite time.

  Now that I'm applying your theory to you, you seem peeved.

                                   Atlant

    re .311
    
    Once again you try to turn around cause and effect.  It was _you_
    saying discrimination agains women must end _now_ then saying men
    should wait generations for generations for discrimination against
    men to be correctes.  I was simply pointing out _your_ hypocrisy.
    
    I also recall it was _you_ complaining about people not being able
    to engage in _honest_ debate.
    
    fred();

fred:

  Okay fred, what's *YOUR* plan to end discrimination?

  When does your plan do it?

                                   Atlant

    
    
    "I have a dream.  About the day when a man will be judged not by the
    color of his skin, but by the stature of his character"--Martin
    Luther King.  (Off the top of my head, probably not exact, but close
    enough).

    _Giant_ strides to remove discrimination have _already_ been made.
    Mostly by calling discrimination when and where it was found,
    and mostly by white men who recognized discrimination _is_ wrong
    and enacting laws to correct the situation.

    However to hear some squawk you'd think that this is still the 
    1950's Deep South.  Now when those same white guys point out that
    discrimination has been reversed, they are _still_ attacked as
    bigots and answered with demands for even _more_ discrimination
    against them.  I don't think this is what MLK had in mind.

    fred();

    
    BTW, re Eisenhower.  It was Eisenhower who sent the Army into Little
    Rock, Arkansas (now where have we heard about that place lately?) to 
    enforce the school desegregation.  
    
    fred();

fred:

  Read this week's "Newsweek" about Greenville, TX. Count
  the black faces around Digital's ZKO site. Take a black
  friend walking through South Boston. Or be a gay couple
  in Colorado Springs.

  MLK's dream is still only a dream for many folks.

                                   Atlant

    
    re .316

>  Read this week's "Newsweek" about Greenville, TX. Count
>  the black faces around Digital's ZKO site. Take a black
>  friend walking through South Boston. Or be a gay couple
>  in Colorado Springs.

    Actually I live in a neighborhood that is more Hispanic than
    white.  In a town where over half the students in public school
    are Hispanic.  A brother and a nephew are both married to other-
    race wives.  I've worked for both other-race managers and for
    other-sex managers.  Probably one of my best friends here at
    Digital is gay.  Some of my best friends have been other-race
    and other-sex.  And yet I here this continual din about how I 
    must be discriminated against in order to correct discrimination.

    >  MLK's dream is still only a dream for many folks.

    I have a hard time believing that the reverse discrimination that
    is happening today is what he had in mind as a remedy, though.

    fred();

    adendum .317
    
    And I hear a deafening silence (if not outright opposition)  from those 
    who so galantly advocate anti-discrimination when it comes to the
    outright bigotry children and men face in our society and court system.
    
    fred)

    .304
    
    Another error in logic here.  the selection of a CEO is not a random
    chance event.  This would basically negate your detailed statistical
    analysis.
    
    conduct the same analysis on the basis of similar pools of
    candidates.  Your astronomical %s change significantly and yield what
    is the current state.
    
    
    Happy to point out that you end up in an illogical end when you start
    from an illogical beginning.
    

    .309
    
    Wrong again.  I summarized what you srote as NOWs reason for objecting
    to the school.  They want to see this school stopped so that there can
    not be an all-boys school.
    
    It is not about fairness but making sure their agenda goes forward.
    

    Rocush, if NOW stops all-girls schools *and* all-boys schools,
    they are being perfectly consistent with the idea of being
    against single-sex public schools.
    
    What the hell is your problem with this?
    

    .321
    
    Profanity is never a reasonable replacement for logic, but if you so
    chose then.....
    
    Once again, you have not followed this string and now are responding 10
    levels deep into the conversation.
    
    I have no desire to repeat all of the notes entered on this matter.  I
    suggest you go back and read the appropriate notes and you will see
    that my response was based on there being no desire for equality, but a
    desire to insure that a males-only school be established.  If their
    position that an all-girls school was wrong because it was created an
    equality, then that's one thing.  Their position was that this school
    could be used a way to establish an all-boys school.
    
    Their position had nothing to do with fairness.
    
    My problem with this is not the result but the means and purpose.
    

    So, you have a problem with NOW being consistent and establishing
    the same rules for girls that they wish to apply to boys.
    
    Gee, what a surprise.  :|
    

    
>  Across 500 events, the probability of *NO* women being chosen
>  is 0.95^500 = 7 parts per trillion�! That is, there's a
>  7.27*10E-12 probability of this situation occuring by
>  random chance.
    >
>  has. But it ought to be right in the neighborhood of 0.95 * 500 =
>  25. :-)
    
    That looks about right to me given my assumptions.  
    
    I believe the 5% is pretty high, the article referenced showed 2-3%
    engineers in 1960 and 1970.  I don't know but I'd guess the figure for
    MBAs, finance, and other careers that lead to CEO jobs were in that
    general % also. If 2.5% is closer to correct the expected value is down
    to 12.5.
    
    Now factor in stuff like personal choices about issues like staying home 
    with the babies and the number drops even more.  
    
    The discrimination faced by these women also would drop the number more. 
    The biq question is was the amjority of that discrimination in the past
    or is it still prevelant?
    
    IMO, focussing on this number appears to play on disparent result from
    the inherent expectation of 50/50 splits; an expectation that couldn't
    be anywhere near met in this case. To put this another way, do you think
    the same women's groups would put out messages like "equity achieved;
    we now have 25 women CEOs in the Fortune 500"?  I don't; cynically I
    think this figure is used to play on our basic belief that ultimately
    we'd expect the number to be more like 250.
    
    Greg
    
    

    
    I forgot part of my reply.  The stuff I've read on this has used
    abysmal statistics. Stuff like "women start out even with men but then
    the glass ceiling kicks in".  Then when you read the details they did
    not follow one cohort group through their careers and see that this was
    what happened; instead they are comparing the 20, 30 ,40, 50, and 60
    year old women of today.  In essence they are saying today's 20 years
    olds are staying even with the men while today's 60 year-olds have hit
    the glass ceiling.  Not Sh*t Sherlock; what else would you expect
    following careers that started in the mid-50s?  Tell me where the 60
    year olds were when they where 20 and you might have a case.

    This is very bad science. Instead follow a group and then analyze if they
    stayed together or if they spit.  I'm not joe-pro on this subject but I
    do have knowledge of the progression of 3 graduating classes from 1981
    on and in all 3 cases the women are moving along right with the men. 
    There are less women but the % moving up and making x$ is staying
    pretty constant with their presence in the original class.

    Greg
                                                             

    .323
    
    Let me say this again and maybe you'll be able to understand the
    difference.  I doubt it, but let me try.  I feel daring today.
    
    If NOW simply stated that an all-girl school was wrong - period - and
    fought to eliminate it, then that's fine and they get a hardy hand
    shake.  But if that was the case they would be out protesting all of th
    esingle sex girls colleges, but I digress.
    
    No, their position is that we have to make sure that boys don't get a
    separate school so we keep girls from getting one.  It's an attitude
    and agenda, not the actions that count.
     

    The single sex private colleges are not something NOW quarrels with. 
    Those that are state funded, and I believe the all girls school was
    public are a different matter.  NOW like many of us is seeking equal
    public accomodation, consitant with the goals of equality in the public
    sector.  A publically funded all girl, all boy, all black, all white,
    all hispanic, all pagan all christian, all buddist, all direct
    descendants of Betsy Ross school or college is abhorrent to me.  If
    said groups want to isolate themselves and their children with money
    out of their own pockets, I have no problem.  
    
    meg

    Rocush, NOW was being consistent (by protesting a girls-only
    public school the way they acknowledge that they would protest
    a boys-only public school.)

    If they hadn't been there to protest at all, you'd have slammed them
    to the end of the universe and back for that, too (and you know it.)
    

     First Day of School For Boston Latin Student Who
     Challenged Racial Quotas

     By Associated Press, 08/29/96

     Eds: Moved first for AMs

     AP Photo

     By RICHARD LORANT

     Associated Press Writer

     BOSTON (AP) - When a federal judge ordered the
     city's public schools desegregated in 1974, the
     first day of classes was marked by rock-throwing
     and protests that came to symbolize white
     backlash.

     On Thursday, a white girl whose court challenge of
     racial quotas could upend that desegregation plan
     spent her first day at the Boston Latin School
     without fanfare or visible opposition.

     Julia McLaughlin, 13, blended in unnoticed with
     2,400 new and returning students who streamed into
     the elite school she fought to enter.

     ``Everything went fine. The students were
     extremely nice to her,'' her father, attorney
     Michael McLaughlin, said after he spoke to his
     daughter at the end of the school day. ``I expect
     a lot from Boston Latin, as it expects from its
     students, and I was not disappointed.''

     Julia McLaughlin had been turned away from the
     Latin School despite scoring as well as, or better
     than, 103 black and Hispanic students on her
     entrance exam. The public high school sets aside
     35 percent of its seats for blacks and Hispanics.

     But U.S. District Court Judge W. Arthur Garrity -
     the same judge who 22 years ago ordered forced
     busing - told the school to admit her because her
     lawsuit was likely to succeed. The suit is
     expected to go to trial this fall.

     In a 41-page document, Garrity questioned the
     validity of the quotas, suggesting alternatives to
     racial quotas like a lottery among high scorers on
     the entrance exam.

     Since the order, city officials have said they may
     consider basing set-asides on factors other than
     race; how much money students' parents make, for
     example, or where they live.

     But McLaughlin said that anything less than
     eliminating all quotas would be an
     unconstitutional attempt to get around the ruling
     akin to past practices to keep blacks from voting
     or buying homes in some neighborhoods.

     ``If you look at geographical (quotas), that's
     what banks have done for years. That's called
     redlining,'' he said.

     For now the school and McLaughlin's parents are
     doing their best to keep the eighth-grader out of
     the spotlight.

     Television crews and photographers outside the
     columned entrance to the classical brick school
     building were unable to pick Julia McLaughlin out
     of the crowd. Complying with her parents' wishes
     that she remain anonymous, school officials said
     they would eject any reporters who tried to
     interview her on school grounds.

     ``We're trying to defuse the notion that this is a
     Julia McLaughlin case,'' Headmaster Michael
     Contompasis said after speaking to 700 assembled
     juniors and seniors Thursday in the school's
     oak-paneled assembly hall.

     During the assembly, Contompasis told students he
     expected them to react responsibly to whatever
     ruling the court eventually issues.

     ``You are beginning as young adults to understand
     that there are complex issues that govern society
     and this is one of them,'' he said.

     ``That's why we have the Constitution, that's why
     we are a nation that is governed by laws, and
     that's why we have a democracy, which allows all
     of us to have a point of view.''

     The school, founded in 1635, is one of three in
     the city that admit students based on results of
     an entrance exam. The school covers grades seven
     through 12.

     Lining the assembly hall walls are the names of
     some of the school's most prestigious alumni, who
     include Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John
     Hancock, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Leonard Bernstein,
     four presidents of Harvard University and four
     Massachusetts governors.

     Some critics say anything other than a strict,
     exam-based admissions policy threatens that
     tradition of excellence. The quotas were set in
     1975, a year after Garrity's landmark
     desegregation ruling.

     But Contompasis defended the educational benefits
     of maintaining racial and economic diversity in
     the school, and urged students to concentrate on
     their schoolwork instead of the ruling.

     ``Your focus is not how you got in here, but how
     you're going to get out of here, and that will be
     our focus,'' he said.

     For the first few days of school at least, that
     will be easier said than done.

     On their way to school Thursday, students appeared
     split on the McLaughlin decision.

     ``If she scored higher than the other students
     then she should have the right to come here,''
     said Ronald Brankley, a black 11th-grader who
     lives in the city's Fenway section.

     He said he didn't believe the decision was a
     setback for desegregation.

     But Chantale Regnier, a ninth-grader from
     Mattapan, said it was.

     ``The quota keeps our school diverse, so people
     should respect that,'' said Regnier, who is black.
     ``I know a lot of people who wouldn't be here if
     it weren't for that.''

    No one ( Suzzanne or Atlant et. al.) has answered whether this young
    lady should have given her school seat up to some more deserving
    minority.
    
    The lack of a response is not unexpected.

    In less than two minutes you expect a response?  In Suzannes and my case
    it is two hours earlier, and Suzanne doesn't work this hour.  Now being
    colorado  centric, as some are apparently new-england centric, why
    would anyone have a public school that only some can test into in the
    first place?  Is this sort of elitism prevelent on the Eastern seaboard
    or what?
    
    meg

    
    MEG:
    
    The question was asked yesterday...
    
             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
================================================================================
Note 238.298              is it money or gender/race???               298 of 331
APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce"                            18 lines  29-AUG-1996 13:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atlant:
    
    If you are hurting my child, as a good parent I will fight you tooth
    and nail to the best of my abilities. I would not be a resonable parent
    had I not resisted.
    
    Can you comprehend this? Can you understand that what you are preaching
    is PUNITIVE action against people you don't know, don't care to know
    and who have done NOTHING to justify this treatment.
    
    As far as debating, on the issues I have used RE the bomb, you have
    used speculation and guesses that fit your model, I have used
    references to published authors. Who needs debating lessons?
    
    BTW: What about the girl in Boston Latin? Should she give up her seat
    to a more minor minority?
    
    Steve

>    BTW: What about the girl in Boston Latin? Should she give up her seat
>    to a more minor minority?

If that was the entire context of the question, it would hardly be enough for 
someone not familiar with the case (especially out in the wild west where they 
have never heard of Boston Latin) to develop an opinion.

>    why would anyone have a public school that only some can test into in the
>    first place?  Is this sort of elitism prevelent on the Eastern seaboard
>    or what?
    
    It's basically the same thing as having accelerated math programs,
    etc., based on _merit_, but on a larger scale.  At the high school 
    level I see no problem with it.  It's a fact of life, especially
    in city public school systems, that by that point in the educational 
    process you have your achievers who want to make something of their 
    education, those that don't (to an extreme), and those in the middle.  
    I see no point to throwing them all in the same boat and praying that 
    something good comes of it.  You want to call that "elitism", fine,
    I'll reserve that term for those school systems, public or private,
    where money talks, not merit.
    
    glenn
    

    RE .333  It was there for all to see... It was not some vague  
             reference.
    
    
             <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
================================================================================
Note 238.256              is it money or gender/race???               256 of 334
APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce"                            78 lines  29-AUG-1996 08:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First Day of School For Boston Latin Student Who
     Challenged Racial Quotas

     By Associated Press, 08/29/96

     BOSTON (AP) - A white eighth-grader who won a
     court battle to attend the prestigious Boston
     Latin School after she was denied admission
     because of her race was calm as she prepared for
     her first day of classes today.

     ``She seems unbelievably relaxed,'' said Michael
     McLaughlin, an attorney who represented his
     daughter, 13-year-old Julia, in her federal
     lawsuit charging the city with reverse
     discrimination.

     Julia McLaughlin, who had attended private school,
     was turned away from the Latin School despite
     scoring as well as, or better than, 103 black and
     Hispanic students on her entrance exam. The public
     high school sets aside 35 percent of its seats for
     blacks and Hispanics.

     ``My daughter believes that if she wins the race,
     she gets the medal,'' Michael McLaughlin told the
     Boston Herald.

     McLaughlin's lawsuit is still awaiting trial, but
     last week a federal judge ordered the school to
     admit her, saying she had a likelihood of winning
     the case.

     The man who made the decision, U.S. District Court
     Judge W. Arthur Garrity, is the same judge who
     ordered the city's schools desegregated in 1974.
     That move, which forced 45,000 students to take
     buses to school, led to riots by angry whites and
     an eventual white exodus from the public school
     system.

     Garrity's order does not immediately affect any
     other students, but it could pave the way for a
     change in the way the city attempts to ensure
     racial diversity among its schools.

     Schools Superintendent Thomas Payzant is
     considering proposing a new system, this one based
     on where people live and how much money they make,
     to the school committee. Garrity suggested a
     lottery among students with high scores on the
     entrance exam.

     Boston Latin School is one of three elite public
     schools in the city that require the entrance
     exams, and the one with the most illustrious
     history.

     Founded in 1635, its alumni include Benjamin
     Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Ralph Waldo
     Emerson, Leonard Bernstein, four presidents of
     Harvard University and four Massachusetts
     governors.

     AP-DS-08-29-96 0710EDT

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or
video material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed
directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
Materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a
computer except for personal and non-commercial use.The
AP will not be held liable for any delays,
inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or
for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

    

    .327
    
    Please identify any private college or university that is privately
    funded and does not receive state or federal funds in some fashion. 
    Every college accepts students that have received guarnteed student
    loans - backed by the government -, Pell grants - bprovided by the
    government -, scholarships - many of which are government sponsored.
    
    There is no college that is totally dependent on the resources of the
    student as the only financing.  Since every college accepts these funds
    then they are receiving public support.
    
    I suppose you could even look at the so-called private scholarships
    that are provided by individuals or organizations with tax deductible
    contributions.  since these funds are excluded from tax the remaining
    tax payers actually pay a portion of the scholarship.  A bit of a
    stretch, but not much based on some of the logic used in other issues.
    
    Since there are no such things as privately funded colleges, why are
    they not forced to accept all candidates.
    

    .328
    
    You still ignore the basic reason why the action is being taken.  They
    couldn't care less about an all-girls school.  They want to make sure
    that an all-boys school doesn't open.
    
    There is a significant difference between the two actions.  If you
    chose to ignore it, fine, but don't expect me to give them any credit
    since their underlying agenda has nothing to do with insuring fair
    treatment of everyone, just females.
    

    
    Whenever the subject of a voucher system for education is brought up,
    there is an immediate caterwauling about how  those vouchers will
    be spent on religious private schools and therefore violates the 
    separation of church and state.  However the same standard does not
    seem to apply for Pel/etc government grants that get spent on all-
    girl "private" schools.  Hmmm.

    YADS--Yet Another Double Standard.

    fred();

    Those vouchers are for grades K-12.

    re .339
    
    Pel grant or voucher.  Public school or private.  
    Last time I checked the Constitution makes no distinction between
    k-12 and colleges.
    
    fred();

    So? 
    
    What about this young lady at Boston Latin...?
    
    I have waited a day and nooo one  has responded. I wonder why?
    
    Can't figure an answer that can stand the test of AA? Two minorities.
    Who is more minor? No white males in this one. Oh, we might have to
    think and justify our prejudices...
    
    No diversions! Just answer: Should she give up her seat to a more minor
                                minority? 
    
    It is quite a simple question.

    minor minority?
    
    You mean like a person under 21?  That is what I thought highschool is
    about.  Do you mean more econmically disavantaged?  You know us wild
    wooly west people don't completely understand this latin school
    business anyway.  is it something like the International Baccalauriet
    program?  What were the differences in test scores?  Besides I though
    public schools didn't teach anything.
    
    meg

    
    Well, the Constitition is entirely silent on the matter of education,
    so it is not surprising that you find no distinction there.
    
    But if you look at it in terms of public education over the history of
    this country, the distinction is pretty clear. I've never heard of a
    publically-funded college that is open to all, have you?
    
    And in any case, your argument is a strawman. The main objection to
    vouchers for education is that it is "cherry picking" for private
    schools -- whether religion-oriented or not. Private schools can refuse
    whom they want, and are not bound by special needs legislation.
    
    Those are the standard objections; my own objection is that vouchers
    let us avoid solving the obvious problems that exist in public schools
    -- while abandoning those kids who cannot take advantage of vouchers.
    
    JP

    Meg:
    
    Just so you understand and can do no more diversions:
    
    1. Should this young white woman give up her place to a young black man
       with lower test scores?
    
    Yes or no will suffice
    
    
    2. Should this young white woman give up her place to a young black woman
       with lower test scores?
    
    Yes or no will suffice

    
    Meg,
    
    Most big cities in the East have focussed public schools that have
    entrance exams.  Boston Latin is a school focussed on college prep and
    gets a lot of the brightest kids in the Boston school system.  This
    allows them to be with a lot of other bright kids and also makes it
    easier to provide more advanced placement courses for less bucks (due
    to the concentration of the brighter kids).  New York, for example, has
    academic schools with exams (Bronx School of Science) as well as exam 
    schools who focus on the arts (the school about which the movie "Fame" 
    was based).
    
    I'd guess that Denver, LA, SF, Seattle have similar schools also.
    
    Greg
                                                 

    
    

    re .343

>    And in any case, your argument is a strawman. The main objection to
>    vouchers for education is that it is "cherry picking" for private
>    schools -- whether religion-oriented or not. 

    Then why is the first argument against vouchers that I always hear is,
    "That would be violation of church and state".  The Wisconsin 
    court just ruled that the current state experiment on vouchers
    could not give money to kids going to religious-based private schools.
    Other private schools are ok.  

    Anyway the argument is not about vouchers.  It's about public money
    to private schools.  The women-only schools claim that they can
    be women-only because they are not publicly supported.  Yet what
    is the difference in women-only college getting Pel grant (public
    money) and Christian schools getting voucher (public money)?

    fred();

    .343
    
    Unfortunately your objection to vouchers is a strawman.  This is no
    Constitutional issue about the separation of church and state.  this is
    giving a taxpayer the choice as to where they spend their money.  The
    taxpayer is making the decision, not the state.  If the taxpayer wishes
    to use the services of a parochial school, so be it.  the state is out
    of the equation.
    
    Second, your issue about avoiding solving the problem is equally
    questionable.  First, the existing system and unions have created the
    problem.  Unless someone is willing to take on the status quo, such as
    Bob Dole, then you will never get any improvement.  Clintons answer is
    more money.  We have spent billions and get a worse product.  The
    system has to be changed and vouchers is one way to do that.
    
    Also, assuming the best students leave and just the less talented kids
    remain, which I doubt, but anyway..  this would leave teachers with a
    much smaller class to teach and could provide more individual attention
    to each student thereby raising their ability and achievement levels. 
    The system overall improves.
    

    
    Re: .346
    
    Fred,
    
    >Anyway the argument is not about vouchers.  It's about public money to
    >private schools.  
    
    In fact my argument is even more limited than that. I'm talking about
    public money that is earmarked for public education going to private
    schools.
    
    I understand your point about public money going to colleges via gov't
    sponsored financial aid, but isn't the playing field level? The gov't
    doesn't care whether you go to a left-handers-only school when it comes
    to individual financial aid, which indirectly aids the school only
    indirectly. They do care about these things for direct aid, but so
    what?
    
    It seems like a reasonable split of catering to conflicting goals and
    desires to me.
    
    JP

    re .348
    
    My point is indirect aid in both cases (Voucher goes to parent who then
    chooses school.  Pel grant goes to student who then gives it to the
    school), and the hypocrisy of the  argument that one is not
    government supported and the other is.  
    
    
    fred();

    
    Re: .347 by ACISS1::ROCUSH 
    
    I think that what you are overlooking or ignoring is the 200+ years of
    public education policy in this country. If you don't think that the
    public ought to pay to educate kids -- all kids -- that's fine, but
    that's a different discussion.
    
    But if we owe all children an equal opportunity at education -- and I
    think we do --  then in my opinion vouchers would be a terrible idea. I
    don't know whether you made that comment with a straight face (about
    vouchers improving public schools by reducing class size) but it's not
    a case of the same amount of money being spent on those left behind,
    remember? Public school funds would be reduced by the amount spent on
    vouchers.
    
    As far as having a serious problem and vouchers being one way to change
    that, I would describe this as a "We've got to do something, no matter
    how silly" approach. I suggest you think about how such an approach
    might be used in ways you don't like before advocating its use in ways
    you do.
    
    JP

    
    Re: .349
    
    Yes, I said I see your point. 
    
    My point is that the cases are not equivalent because voucher money
    comes from the public education pot, thus depriving public schools of
    support.
    
    Gov't financial aid doesn't come out of anyone's pocket, except yours
    and mine, of course. But I think that is money well spent.
    
    JP

    re .351

    I still see you making a disconnect between the two.  Vouchers
    or Pel grant, it _all_ comes out of our pocket.

    Actually in Colorado we had a proposal to take a voucher equal
    to only half of what was spent per kid in the public school.
    Thus the public schools would have gotten 1/2 _more_ for the
    kids that stayed.  The proposal failed.  The biggest opponents
    were the NEA and CEA.  If money is the problem, if educating 
    students is the goal, then why did they turn down the offer of 
    getting 1/2 per student in the classroom?  Looks like the public
    school could have cleaned up getting 300% more than the voucher
    for the private school.

    fred();

    
    Fred,
    
    I live a long way from Colorado, so I really can't say, but it could be
    that it's because the price per student includes a lot of fixed costs,
    so the proposal still may force public schools to try to do more with
    less.
    
    Or maybe it's that the NEA/CEA crowd trusts the voucher crowd as little
    as the latter trusts the former.
    
    JP

    
    
    re .353

>    I live a long way from Colorado, so I really can't say, but it could be
>    that it's because the price per student includes a lot of fixed costs,
>    so the proposal still may force public schools to try to do more with
>    less.

    Given a certain fixed base cost per student, then you'd think that 
    more money for fewer students would overall be more "efficient"
    cost wise.  I suspect that, just as a lot of other stuff we've
    been discussing here, the stated issue isn't the real issue. In
    this case the real bottom line is keeping as many students as possible 
    in public school, therefore justifying keeping as many NEA members 
    employed as possible.  The rest is just smoke screen.  If the students 
    don't get the education they'd get elsewhere, then that's just tough.

    fred();

    If you have 250 students instead of 500 students in a school,
    the building still costs the same amount of money to run.
    
    The heat costs the same - more perhaps, since there would
    be less body heat to offset the cost of heating the building.
    
    The grounds still need the same work, the building still costs
    the same to paint, the hallways and rooms still cost the same
    to keep clean, and the bathrooms, the gymnasium and the cafeteria
    still cost the same to clean and operate even if fewer students
    relieve_themselves/take_gym_class/eat_lunch there, respectively.
    
    Smaller numbers of children in each class still need the same
    number of teachers, too.
    
    So, if you have the same building, the same grounds, the same
    facilities, and the same teachers - but you have less money
    coming in the door to pay for these things - the school (and
    the children) are harmed.

    Plus, if the school has busses, they would probably need to
    maintain the same number of busses (even if they drive to
    school half-full every day.)
    

    And you'd need fewer teachers, and just like DEC headcount is
    the biggest expense.
    
    And if, as a result of keeping the status quo, children don't get
    the education that they need otherwise,  all we need is yet another
    $2B of taxpayer money to correct the situation.  Right?
    fred();

    If we have fewer teachers, then we don't end up with 'smaller
    classes', though.  We end up with crowded classrooms and too
    little money to do much of anything.

    Removing the money from public education is not the answer,
    unless you believe in burning down a village to save it.

    Some people have developed a mentality in this country that
    anything related to the government is bad-bad-bad-bad-bad
    and must be stamped out (unless it involves annihilating 
    millions or billions of people, of course.)

    If some are so against the government, then why do they drive
    on the roads and highways in this country?   They're the products
    of the government, too.

    Perhaps, if the 'other side' gets their way, we'll end up back
    in the Old West (where everyone carries six-guns at their sides
    and drives their wagons on dirt roads.)

    The status quo *is* this backward-thinking, macho, we-hate-the-
    government-because-we-love-our-guns-and-feel-like-we-may-not-
    be-able-to-own-300-of-them-if-we-want-to-someday attitude that
    tries to feed us the line that we can help American children
    the most by spending *A LOT LESS MONEY ON THE BUGGERS*.

    I'm for looking at the future (and what we can do to solve any
    problems we have), rather than trying to live in some idealistic
    B.S. past while tearing down and dismantling the entire government
    (as if that will help somehow.)

    I trust the government far, far more than I trust those who want
    to dismantle it.  It's only the government (and the growing number
    of white males who do see things fairly) who keep women and
    minorities from being permanently clobbered by the cowardly
    bullies in this country.

    By the way, the number of school-aged children is on the rise
    right now and expected to boom until 2006 or so.
    
    Gee, I wonder if those special interest groups which court
    Republicans have their eyes on getting all that extra tax
    money for their profit-making private schools, primarily.
    
    The American political system - gotta love it.  :|

    
    reply .359
    
>    By the way, the number of school-aged children is on the rise
>    right now and expected to boom until 2006 or so.
    
    Which means unless we take advantage of the private system, we are
    going to have to build, heat, staff, and bus even more.  Which
    directly contradicts your earlier argument.
    
    fred();

    
    And I'd like to know just what's so bad about the private sector
    doing a better job at half the cost? 
    fred();

    RE: .360  Fred
    
    > Which means unless we take advantage of the private system, we are
    > going to have to build, heat, staff, and bus even more.  Which
    > directly contradicts your earlier argument.
    
    This doesn't contradict anything I said.
    
    If the school system keeps its money, the funds will be available
    to deal with the increase in the student population.

    RE: .361  Fred
    
    > And I'd like to know just what's so bad about the private sector
    > doing a better job at half the cost? 
    
    The private sector isn't available to everyone, so some children
    would be harmed.
    
    Unless you're into deliberately harming children as part of making
    some ideological point, vouchers is not a good idea.
    

>    If the school system keeps its money, the funds will be available
>    to deal with the increase in the student population.
    
    And if we give the same money to the private sector instead of 
    building more schools, buying more busses, etc.  we can do the
    same (or better) job at half the cost.
    
    fred()

    RE: .364  Fred
    
    > And if we give the same money to the private sector instead of 
    > building more schools, buying more busses, etc.  we can do the
    > same (or better) job at half the cost.
    
    ...while the remaining children are left to pay the biggest cost
    of this change.
    
    No thanks.
    

    If people want to send their children to private school, they
    can pay for it or try to qualify for scholarships.
    
    Tax money going to profit-making private schools is just more
    welfare for the rich.
    

    re .363
    
>    The private sector isn't available to everyone, so some children
>    would be harmed.
    
    As it is, even more students are stuck in a failed system for lack
    of parents being able to support two systems (private for their kid,
    and public for everyone elses kid).  So which system is harming more
    kids?
    
    The biggest problem for the NEA is that they fear that _they_ are
    the ones who won't be able to compete.
    
    fred();

    re .366
    
>    Tax money going to profit-making private schools is just more
>    welfare for the rich.
    
    And even more money going to clean up the mess caused by the NEA
    is just money down a rathole.   Forcing kids to stay in the current
    failed system is what is hurting kinds.  
    
    fred();

    The Republican party has declared war on the public school teachers
    of America, so obviously, they have become the new 'devils' in this
    country.

    Funding keeps being cut for public education (over and over and over),
    so some think that the problem is that we haven't cut their funding
    nearly enough.

    So we might as well give tax dollars to profit-making private schools,
    right?  

    Hey - Reagan made sure (in the 80s) that the richest 1% of Americans
    went from owning 20% of the wealth to 40% of the wealth.

    Perhaps the Republicans could fix it so that the richest 1% of
    Americans could own 80% of the wealth.  (But in the name of good
    ole Families Values, right?) :|

    re .365
    
>    ...while the remaining children are left to pay the biggest cost
>    of this change.

    If you mean that kids who remain in the public system will get
    short-changed education wise, you're probably right.  Unless
    the public schools get their act together.  Which they just might
    if they find that they actually have to compete instead of just
    sucking up tax dollars.

    The number of existing buildings won't have to increase, therefore
    the kids in public school will not have to have more dollars
    spent on a program that costs twice as much as the private sector.
    It will just cost more to give the kids in public school a lesser
    education than the kinds in private school will be getting.

    fred();

    No thanks.
    
    I'd rather fix whatever problems we have than deliberately harm
    some children because their parents can't afford to make up
    the difference between the tax dollars and the cost of tuition
    at private school.
    
    Remember, whatever it costs the private school to do something,
    they're in the game for profit, so we don't benefit when they're
    able to save money.  THEY benefit.  We don't.
    
    We just harm other children, that's all - and I'm not willing
    to do that.

    
    re .369
    
>    The Republican party has declared war on the public school teachers
>    of America, so obviously, they have become the new 'devils' in this
>    country.
    
    No, they have declared war on spending even more billions on a failed
    system that already spends more per child than any other contry in
    the world.
    
>    So we might as well give tax dollars to profit-making private schools,
>    right?  
    
    So just what's so bad about making a profit if you do a better job
    at half the price.
    
    fred();

    
    re .371
    
>    We just harm other children, that's all - and I'm not willing
>    to do that.

    So just who says children will be harmed.  It's already a _proven_
    point that _everybody_ does a better job if there is competition.
    The current monopoly is what has caused the mess in the first place.
    And there is little or no incentive in the current system to fix
    the current problems.
    
    fred();

    RE: .372  Fred
    
    > No, they have declared war on spending even more billions on a failed
    > system that already spends more per child than any other contry in
    > the world.
    
    How dare we spend so much money on children, right?
    
    > So just what's so bad about making a profit if you do a better job
    > at half the price.
    
    The Wal-Marts of education.  That family certainly made billions.
    
    The tax-payers will still pay the same amount of money, except
    that it will go to people who using it to make a profit while
    other children are harmed in the process.
    
    I believe in free enterprise, but not at the expense of children.

    Sure, there is incentive to fix the current system.
    
    The Republicans have declared war on it.  They mean to destroy it.
    I'd say that the school teachers know that they are wearing 
    bullseye patterns on their backs.
    
    So we help them solve the problems.

    
    >    How dare we spend so much money on children, right?
    
    More like why should we shuck out another $2b (for starters) for
    a problem that we are _already_ paying teachers to take care of.
    
    
>    The tax-payers will still pay the same amount of money, except
>    that it will go to people who using it to make a profit while
>    other children are harmed in the process.
    
    Says who?
    
    >    I believe in free enterprise, but not at the expense of children.
    
    I do not believe in protecting NEA jobs at the expense of children.
    
    fred();

    Sorry, I keep forgetting that Bob Dole has given you guys your
    marching orders for this year already.
    
    If he says that the Democratic White House represents the
    'status quo', then you have to find ways to use this term
    at every opportunity.
    
    If Bob Dole says that the NEA is the new evil force in this
    country, then you need to slam them every chance you get.
    
    I hope everyone got a written copy of his speech (so you won't
    miss any of his other favorite slogans or enemies.)

    
    Your agend is showing Suzanne.
    fred();

    RE: .378  Fred
    
    > Your agend is showing Suzanne.
    
    It's spelled "agenda", Fred.
    
    Well, whatever.  We all have the right to vote, so we'll see what
    happens later this year.
    
    See ya.
    

    Well, you guys may get your wishes with this voucher issue - ya
    never know.  We'll see.

    My teacher friend mentioned something to me last night that made
    me wonder about something.

    She said that the biggest problem in teaching is the parents.
    (Now, I should mention here that she is actually one of the few
    teachers who *does* want vouchers.)

    She said that the parents don't participate enough in their
    children's educations, they don't work with the kids enough
    at home on what the kids are learning, yet they complain
    loudly if the teacher tries to discipline the child at all
    (even if the punishment is just an extra assignment.)

    She want vouchers because she thinks it may force the parents
    to get involved.

    It makes me wonder - why on Earth would so many parents expect
    to send their 6 year olds or 7 year olds to school to have their
    lives changed by relative strangers (to the parents, at least)?
    At the same time, the teachers are busy with 30 or so other 
    students as well.

    Why would our society decide that if a child can't read, the school
    is 100% to blame?  What happened to personal responsibility for
    ones own children?  I mean, how can you NOT NOTICE that your child
    can't read?

    School should be a good introduction to reading, with plenty of
    follow-up opportunities to engage in activities involving reading
    - but it's the parents' personal responsibility to spend time at
    home making sure that the lessons are being learned well (in a
    one-on-one engagement with the child that shows whether or not
    the child is actually learning.)

    Blaming teachers is a copout of parental responsibility.  Parents
    ought to be involved enough in their children's education to KNOW
    if the child can read.

    Suzanne,
    
    I am going to shock you.  In my neighborhood I personally know of two
    families that have no bookshelves in their homes.  In one case both
    parents read for technical stuff, but never for pleasure.  There are no
    magazines coming into the home, no history, SF, fantasy,  historical
    fiction, humor, or even cheap bodice rippers in this house.
    
    In the other case, the parents are just sort of marking time till the
    kids are old enough to move out.  they pay NO attention to what the
    kids are doing except to fight to see they get promoted each and every
    year.  (Soon as they get out of school or get pregnant they are out of
    the home)  Again, neither parent reads for pleasure.
    
    As it stands right now 60% of the population is opposed to vouchers. 
    About the same percentage as it was in 1992 when Colorado voted this
    down.  
    
    meg
    
    How do you get kids to unlock the magic of the written word if you
    never read just for the hell of it.  I saw her take the kids to the
    library and bring home books for them, but she never brought one home
    for herself.  Unless you set an example I fail to see how the kids are
    going to get into this anymore than you do.  

    Meg, I guess I'm not too surprised (even though the situation you
    describe is vastly different from the way I raised my son.)

    Even when he was a baby, one of our most favorite activities was
    for me to read storybooks to him while he sat on my lap.  He started
    noticing letters and numbers in the rest of his world (on signs, etc.)
    when he was 15 months old.  He knew they meant something.

    Actually, my birth gift to him was a set of books.  When he was
    5 days old, I gave him a set of "Lord of the Rings" as a present
    for his birth.  I told him, "No rush - just read these when you
    get a chance."  :>  He still has this very book set.  (And he
    *loved* them once he was old enough to give them a try.)

    He still reads voraciously, and he always has some book or another
    that he wants to lend to me to read so that I'll get the enjoyment
    he's gotten out of it.  I have my own books that I enjoy, too,
    of course.

    It would be great if we could find a sure-fire way to get parents
    more involved.  If the parents can't/won't help, then I think
    reading-tutors is a good idea for some kids.  Society is helped
    when the literacy rate stays high (because literate people have
    a better chance of working and surviving in this country.)

    Thanks for your note, Meg.

    .380
    
    This one takes the cake.  You are going to question personal
    responsibility when all you ever do is complain that the GOVERNMENT and
    GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS are all that keep this country from pitching into
    eternal darkness.
    
    You have vilified every conservative who has dared talk about personal
    responsibility and then you have the ultimate hypocracy to wonder where
    personal responsibility is at.  If you are indeed serious with this
    question them welcome to the ranks of the conservative movement in this
    ocuntry.  I somehow doubt that you really mean what you said.
    
    Also, all of your diatribes about vouchers and that all those poor
    little minds are going to be destroyed by greedy Republicans is equally
    without merit.  I particularly enjoyed your entry about following Bob
    Dole's speeches.  You, more than most here, have touted the liberal
    Democratic line right along.  Please don't throw stones until you move
    out of your glass house.
    
    Vouchers are one way to address the current problems with the
    educational system.  It is not the savior of a failed system, but it
    can help.  There are several others, one of which is what you so
    blindly attack, and that is the NEA and other teacher unions.  They
    would be welcomed and supported if they actually cared about the job
    they were supposed to do, and that's educating children.  They lost all
    credibility when they focused on salary and benefits and refused to
    accept any responsibility for the product they produced.  The same was
    true with all of the industrial unions.  Once people found out that
    they were buying union made goods that were inferior and more ecpensive
    than non-union goods they stopped buying and supporting unions.  The
    unions then decided they needed to change in order to survive.
    
    Surprising how competition makes you improve.
    

    Well, good morning to you, too, Rocush.
    
    Hope you had a pleasant holiday weekend.
    
    Cheers,
    Suzanne

> No one ( Suzzanne or Atlant et. al.) has answered whether this young
> lady should have given her school seat up to some more deserving
> minority.

  I don't know enough about the facts or statistics of the
  matter to have a firm opinion. Furthermore, it will be
  litigated (and no one has asked me to file an amicus brief)
  so I can stand to wait for the final outcome of the case.


> The lack of a response is not unexpected.

  Your personal swipe is not unexpected.

                                   Atlant

> MEG:
> 
> The question was asked yesterday...
> 
> <<< QUARK::USER_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Discussions of topics pertaining to men >-
> ================================================================================
> Note 238.298              is it money or gender/race???               298 of 331
> APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce"                            18 lines  29-AUG-1996 13:50
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Atlant:
> 
> If you are hurting my child, as a good parent I will fight you tooth
> and nail to the best of my abilities. I would not be a resonable parent
> had I not resisted.
> 
> Can you comprehend this? Can you understand that what you are preaching
> is PUNITIVE action against people you don't know, don't care to know
> and who have done NOTHING to justify this treatment.

  These questions were answere, BTW.

                                   Atlant

> You still ignore the basic reason why the action is being taken.  *THEY
> COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT AN ALL-GIRLS SCHOOL* [emphasis added].

  This seems to be a silly point of view as the exact fact
  of the case they have entered is *AN ALL GIRLS SCHOOL*.
  Clearly NOW cares more than less.

                                   Atlant

> >    And in any case, your argument is a strawman. The main objection to
> >    vouchers for education is that it is "cherry picking" for private
> >    schools -- whether religion-oriented or not. 
> 
> Then why is the first argument against vouchers that I always hear is,
> "That would be violation of church and state".  The Wisconsin 
> court just ruled that the current state experiment on vouchers
> could not give money to kids going to religious-based private schools.
> Other private schools are ok.  

  Apparently, you're only getting your information from religious
  (or other biased) sources. John's argument about cherry picking
  is certainly the argument that carries the most sway with me
  (as a prior member of a public Board of Education).

  Then, of course, there's the fact that the religious argument
  wins court cases for the voucher opponents. It may or may not
  be the best argument, but if it is sure to carry the day, that's
  what the lawyers will argue. They're paid to win cases for their
  clients, not to convince you.
 
                                   Atlant

    
    After years of butting my head against the bureaucracy, I finally said
    *&^%$ it and put my kids in private school.  Dealing with the teachers
    in public school was it was their way or no way.  They have all
    the psychobabble studies about how kids should be taught, and if
    you disagree with them, then, by God, you are just plain a bad
    person.
    
    The bite financially  has been pretty hard on a one income family.  I
    only have one (a junior)  left to go.  It's been a trying time for both
    the teachers and myself  to undo some very strange habits.  The private
    Christian school does a better job at about 1/4 the cost that the
    taxpayers were paying  for public education, but now I have to pay to
    support my kids, then pay to support the failed public system as well.

    The main problem in public school is just plain ol' discipline.  A
    problem traceable directly back to liberal policies and attitudes
    like "self esteem" and "nobody has a right to tell _me_ what to do",
    and the camapign that the only thing men are good for is to beat
    abuse, and molest their spouses and children.
    
    Parents are terrified of their children.  Children are given the
    number of Social services and told to call any time _they_ think
    they are being "abused".  Any attempt at discipline (if there is
    even a parent in the home to discipline at all) can at the very
    least bankrupt the parent in legal bills even if they win.

    fred();

    
    re .388
>  Apparently, you're only getting your information from religious
>  (or other biased) sources. 
    
    Nope, came from the good ol' "unbiased news" media.
    
    >John's argument about cherry picking
>  is certainly the argument that carries the most sway with me
>  (as a prior member of a public Board of Education).
    
    Now why am I not surprised?
    
    
>  Then, of course, there's the fact that the religious argument
>  wins court cases for the voucher opponents. It may or may not
>  be the best argument, but if it is sure to carry the day, that's
>  what the lawyers will argue. They're paid to win cases for their
>  clients, not to convince you.
    
    Just as we have seen in may other liberal issues.  The real goal
    is not the stated goal.
    
    fred();

Suzanne:

> Plus, if the school has busses, they would probably need to
> maintain the same number of busses (even if they drive to
> school half-full every day.)

  In some states, the public Boards of Education have to spend
  their money busing the kids to private and religious schools!
  It's required by state law! The public school systems were
  also expected to buy textbooks for the private and religious
  schools, but at least one board rebelled against *THAT* concept.

                                   Atlant

fred:

> And I'd like to know just what's so bad about the private sector
> doing a better job at half the cost? 

  Nothing.

  Too bad there's no evidence to support this claim (in regards
  education) *WHEN* The private sector is required to accept
  all kids without prejudice.

  As John Parodi mentioned, one of the big factors (possibly the
  biggest factor) that distinguishes private education from public
  education is that the private and religious schools can simply
  throw the rascals out, knowing that the public schools must ac-
  cept all. And they never took the special needs kids to begin with�.

                                   Atlant


� Except for schools specifically targeting the special needs kids.
  But, of course, they tend to cost a bit more than the $2500 or so
  that the parochial schools like to brag about.

    
    re .391
    

>  In some states, the public Boards of Education have to spend
>  their money busing the kids to private and religious schools!
>  It's required by state law! The public school systems were
>  also expected to buy textbooks for the private and religious
>  schools, but at least one board rebelled against *THAT* concept.
    
    One of the things that really bothers me as a person who shells
    out over 40% of his income in taxes is this attitude is that it's
    _their_ money.
    
    fred();

> Parents are terrified of their children.  Children are given the
> number of Social services and told to call any time _they_ think
> they are being "abused".  Any attempt at discipline (if there is
> even a parent in the home to discipline at all) can at the very
> least bankrupt the parent in legal bills even if they win.

  Fred, you've got to quit reading exclusively right-wing stuff.
  We parents discipline our kids all the time without this sort
  of backlash. Maybe you need to go to time-out to catch up on
  your reading?

  There *ARE* people, of course, who believe that corporal
  punishment is wrong, and they'll act on that belief. They
  seem to respond more strongly to the whippings and beatings
  that some folks seem to administer (often, as directed by
  one or another religious leader or out of ignorance of any
  other disciplinary techniques) than they do to a slap on
  the hand or a single swat on the butt administered to a
  small child.
                                   Atlant

fred:

> >  Then, of course, there's the fact that the religious argument
> >  wins court cases for the voucher opponents. It may or may not
> >  be the best argument, but if it is sure to carry the day, that's
> >  what the lawyers will argue. They're paid to win cases for their
> >  clients, not to convince you.
> 
> Just as we have seen in may other liberal issues.  The real goal
> is not the stated goal.

  You're confusing goals and tactics. The goal is to preserve
  the public education system in this country. The short range
  tactic is to defeat the implementation of a voucher system
  that would destroy public education. The even-shorter-range
  tactic is any legal argument that will prevail.

  Not unlike the methods assumed by the Religious Right. Shall
  we discuss the methods used by the RR to prevent women from ob-
  taining abortions? The short range (point-blank?) tactics tend
  to occasionally be more violent.

                                   Atlant

    
    re .392
    
>  Too bad there's no evidence to support this claim (in regards
>  education) *WHEN* The private sector is required to accept
>  all kids without prejudice.
    
    This also goes back to parental involvement.  To a man/woman parents
    who send their kids the school my daughter attends say that they
    send their kids ther because they were unsatisfied with the 
    education, both secualar and moral, that their kids were getting.
    The school takes all comers.  There are even a couple Moslem kids.
    
    An offshoot of the discipline problem in the public schools is that
    the classes are drug down to their lowest common denominator, with
    the result that the kids who can and want to learn are drug down and 
    held back.
    
    fred();

    
    
    re 395
    
    In both cases, the assumption is that the end justifies the means.
    As I stated before, when you do that the means often become the
    bigger problem.
    
>  You're confusing goals and tactics. The goal is to preserve
>  the public education system in this country. The short range
    
    Or is the real goal the preservation of NEA jobs and NEA control
    of education?
    
    fred();

>================================================================================
>Note 238.385              is it money or gender/race???               385 of 390
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    15 lines   3-SEP-1996 11:07
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> No one ( Suzzanne or Atlant et. al.) has answered whether this young
>> lady should have given her school seat up to some more deserving
>> minority.
>
>  I don't know enough about the facts or statistics of the
>  matter to have a firm opinion. Furthermore, it will be
>  litigated (and no one has asked me to file an amicus brief)
>  so I can stand to wait for the final outcome of the case.
>

    So if that is your attitude, why not wait to implement AA against
    white males?
    
    Actually a diversion. There is plenty of information. The young lady
    had higher scores than another person. If that person was a white male
    you (by your blind support of AA) would oppose her/him replacing the
    candidate with lower test scores.
    
    
>> The lack of a response is not unexpected.

>  Your personal swipe is not unexpected.

    Another diversion. It was not a personal swipe. You cannot pervail in
    this discussion, because your positions you support relies upon the
    following:
    
    	PUNITAVE - punishing someone (my sons for example) who have had
    	           nothing to do with discriminating against anyone.
    
    	ABRITRARY - The Boston Latin case shows this to be true. 
    
    	ILLOGICAL - You cannot present a clear logical argument as to what
    	            someone (my sons) have done to deserve to be treated
    		    this way.
    
    	DISCRIMINATORY - You want ot discrinimate against a group of
    		         people (my sons included) beacuse of their race
    			 and sex. You might try and look up discrimination
    			 in the dictionary

    
    re .394

>  Fred, you've got to quit reading exclusively right-wing stuff.
>  We parents discipline our kids all the time without this sort
>  of backlash. Maybe you need to go to time-out to catch up on
>  your reading?

    So if I disagree with your agenda it must be because I've been
    brain washed by the eeevil Right Wingers?  As I've indicated.  My 
    attitude about the public education system has come from first 
    hand experience.  Your personal attacks are only noted as just 
    that--personal attacks. 

>  There *ARE* people, of course, who believe that corporal
>  punishment is wrong, and they'll act on that belief. They

    And it seems like most of them work in a position to do you a
    _lot_ of harm if you disagree with their philosophy

    fred();

fred:

> >  You're confusing goals and tactics. The goal is to preserve
> >  the public education system in this country. The short range
> 
> Or is the real goal the preservation of NEA jobs and NEA control
> of education?

  Not for me. The goal for me is the preservation of public education.

                                   Atlant

    
    re .400

    >  Not for me. The goal for me is the preservation of public education.

    So far the argument has been the cost of education and how much the
    "public schools" will suffer if "their" money is used elsewhere.
    _If_ true, then it is the "problem" kids that would suffer most.
    Whereas in the current system, the kids who can and want to learn
    are the ones who suffer in the name of preserving the current
    failed system. 

    I have no love of vouchers or private schools per-se, nor do I have 
    anything thing against the public system per-se.  If they can get
    their act together and produce the product that they are paid to 
    produce, then so be it.  The sad part is that it seems that the
    liberals think that the remedy for failed ideas is more of the same
    ideas, ie "outcome based" education.  My biggest problem is that my 
    kids weren't getting the kind of education they need in the public 
    system, and every effor to address that has met with bureaucratic
    gobbldy-gook.  So I have to pay twice in order to get that product.

    fred();

    RE: .398  Steve Keith
    
    >	PUNITAVE - punishing someone (my sons for example) who have had
    >	           nothing to do with discriminating against anyone.
    
    Your daughters and minority children (if you have any) didn't do
    anything to deserve the discrimination they will face all their
    lives.  We have to work on fixing this, and everyone shares in 
    the burdens of this fix.
    
    There isn't a reason in the world why we should hold off on fixing
    the discrimination against women and minorities on the basis that
    we must find a solution that doesn't impact white males in any
    possible way.  
    
    This would amount to giving special privileges to white males.

    
    re .402

>    Your daughters and minority children (if you have any) didn't do
>    anything to deserve the discrimination they will face all their
>    lives.  We have to work on fixing this, and everyone shares in 
>    the burdens of this fix.

    Fortune 500 not withstanding, I disagree that the discrimination
    against women/minorities is as bad today as it seems you'd like
    us to believe.

    I caught a blurb on the "news" about NOW and ACLU actions against
    the all-girls school.  I find the "discrimination must be stamped out 
    at all costs" a rather hollow argument for reasons I stated earlier
    about how selective those groups are in just what discrimination 
    they want stamped out and which they turn a blind eye too if not
    outright support.  And again how the stated goal is not the real goal,
    just a means to the real goal.

    fred();

fred:

> I caught a blurb on the "news" about NOW and ACLU actions against
> the all-girls school.  I find the "discrimination must be stamped out 
> at all costs" a rather hollow argument for reasons I stated earlier
> about how selective those groups are in just what discrimination 
> they want stamped out and which they turn a blind eye too if not
> outright support.  And again how the stated goal is not the real goal,
> just a means to the real goal.

  Selective? At a minimum, they're trying to stop discrimination
  against 52% of the population. And many of us would argue that
  they're trying to stop discrimination against 52% + 48%.

  And in this case, the stated goal *IS* the real goal. You just
  keep trying to make it into something else.

                                   Atlant

    
    re .404
    
>  Selective? At a minimum, they're trying to stop discrimination
>  against 52% of the population. And many of us would argue that
>  they're trying to stop discrimination against 52% + 48%.
>
>  And in this case, the stated goal *IS* the real goal. You just
>  keep trying to make it into something else.

    I keep hearing, over and over that stopping _discrimination_ is the one
    and only goal.  But as I said before, from those who so highly claim to
    champion discrimination there is this thunderous silence, if not
    outright opposition, when it comes to the  discrimination against
    children and men in todays society and courts.  Which leads me to the
    conclusion that for those "champions of justice" stamping out
    discrimination is only important and that _everybody_ must pitch in,
    even suffer if necessary, if and only if the discrimination affects 
    _them_.  
    
    fred();

fred:

> ...But as I said before, from those who so highly claim to
> champion [anti-???]discrimination there is this thunderous
> silence, if not outright opposition, when it comes to the
> discrimination against children and men in todays society
> and courts. ...

  You really have a "selective perception" problem, don't you?

  Count *ME* as one of those folks who believe that NOW is
  working in *MY* bets interests as well. And on some issues
  that are very near and dear to me, *I'D* be far better off
  right now if we had an ERA as the law of the land.

  (Based on the particular topics you choose to complain about,
  e.g., fathers' rights, so would you!)

                                   Atlant

    
    re .406
    
    >  You really have a "selective perception" problem, don't you?
    
    Again I doubt that your cause is forwarded by these personal attacks.
    
>  Count *ME* as one of those folks who believe that NOW is
>  working in *MY* bets interests as well. And on some issues
>  that are very near and dear to me, *I'D* be far better off
>  right now if we had an ERA as the law of the land.

    How many times have I already stated that I supported ERA?  However
    NOW's opposition to child custody issues belies their stated
    goal.  NOW and ACLU stated that their opposition thet he all-girl'
    school was because "discrimination in any for is just plain wrong".
    Yea, Right.  How many times has ACLU supported fathers (or men
    in general even) in anti-discrimination suits?  How many times has 
    NOW demanded the overturn of a judgement because it gave  custody to 
    a father?
    
>  (Based on the particular topics you choose to complain about,
>  e.g., fathers' rights, so would you!)

    And the attacks I've received for speaking out for children's and
    father's rights have proved my point over and over.
    
    fred();

fred:

> How many times has NOW demanded the overturn of a judgement
> because it gave custody to a father?

  I dunno -- how many times has NOW demanded the overturn of
  a judgement because it gave custody to a mother?

  I wouldn't be surprised to find the answers are both zero.

                                   Atlant

        re .408

>  I dunno -- how many times has NOW demanded the overturn of
>  a judgement because it gave custody to a mother?
>
>  I wouldn't be surprised to find the answers are both zero.

    The answer in support of fathers is zero.  There have been several
    cases where NOW has supported the mother.  One such case a couple
    years back because the judge gave custody to the father because
    the mother was going to school and the father could provide full
    time care other than daycare.

    fred();

  Wow!  Two cases, huh? A real statistical base!

                                   Atlant

    RE: .409  Fred

    > One such case a couple years back because the judge gave custody 
    > to the father because the mother was going to school and the father 
    > could provide full time care other than daycare.              

    In this case, the mother was doing what society DEMANDS that single
    mothers do:  She was gaining skills so that she could work to support
    her child well.

    The father wanted to have custody so that his mother could take care
    of the child all day.  He didn't have sufficient grounds to change
    the child's home life (after being in the mother's able custody up 
    to that point.)

    If society wanted her to stay at home with the child, they could give
    her Welfare (but then, she'd be damned to hell and back for not going
    out to gain skills so that she could work to support her child well.)

    If society is going to demand that single mothers 'get off their butts'
    to support their children, society can't take custody away from these
    mothers on the basis that they aren't at home all day with their kids.

    Oh - in case anyone wants to argue that this father was 'more
    equipped' to raise the little girl, the mother of this child
    ALSO had a mother who could stay at home with her instead of
    sending the child to daycare.
    
    As a matter of fact, the mother had her own mother care for 
    the child (instead of daycare) for the entire duration of the
    court case.
    

    .402
    
    I am so sick and tired of you constantly entering false statements that
    you never support with facts that it is disgusting.  Following is part
    of your entry.
    
    Your daughters and minority children (if you have any) didn't do
        anything to deserve the discrimination they will face all their
        lives.  We have to work on fixing this, and everyone shares in 
        the burdens of this fix.
    
    Please provide any FACTS that you have to support this.
    

    
    re last few.
    
    Thank you for once again proving my point.
    The point is that NOW&CO came to the aid of the mother.  Which is a
    statistical difference of infinity for the number of times they have
    come to the aid of a child and father.
    
    fred();

fred:

  Actually (actuarally?), the replies also support my con-
  tention that NOW has had very few fish a-frying in this
  area, having focused on other issues.

  Only a fool would consider two cases statistically sig-
  nificant whilst simultaneously denying the significance
  of 500 cases. Do we know any such fools???

                                   Atlant

    re .415
    
    Well then lets take (yet another) example in the area of "child
    support" vs visitation.  How much support have children and men get
    in the area of visitation?  We ALL know what has been going on with
    "child support" and the collection thereof.
    
    This is a riot!  I mention how men get attacked over
    anti-discrimination issues for men and I'm immediatly attacked.
    ThankyouThankyouThankyou for proving my point.
    
    fred();

fred:

> This is a riot!  I mention how men get attacked over
> anti-discrimination issues for men and I'm immediatly attacked.
> ThankyouThankyouThankyou for proving my point.

  It's too bad you can't tell an "attack" from an attempt to
  correct your "facts". If any of us were actually attacking
  you, I suspect you'd know it.

                                   Atlant

    
    re .417
    
>If any of us were actually attacking
>  you, I suspect you'd know it.
    
    I do.  I've already pointed out a couple.  
    fred();
    
    Ps.  Please excuse the "whining".  I just can't help myself
    sometimes ;^).

    Back to the "vouchers" issue.  How many years has it been since 
    the issue of vouchers and the failed public schools system was
    brought up in Colorado?  And what has the NEA/CEA done to address
    the problems of the public school system?  Other than try to
    push this "Outcome based" aka "Goals 2000" c**p down every bodies
    throat?

    There has been a lot of crowing about the increase in SAT scores
    this year.  However that was _only_ achieved by adding a 100 pt
    "curve" to every student's score just for showing up to take
    the test.  Take away the 100 points and we're right back in the
    dumpster.

    fred();

    .415
    
    Actually 2 cases would be very statiscally significant if they were the
    only two such cases handled.  It appears that these were two specific
    cases that shouwed exactly where NOW resides in terms of "equality".
    
    Their agenda has nothing to do with equality, but everything to do with
    insuring that their members get everything they want no matter what.
    
    If you think NOW is fully justified in taking their actions, then don't
    be a hypocrite and complain thatthose targeted by this sexist
    organization are defending themselves.  Once NOW and other such groups
    actually actively campaign for "equality", then I may be more than
    willing to give them a valid forum.  Until then they are no different
    than any other left-wing radical special interest group and should be
    treated accordingly.
    

    this is where I get very testy..
    
    No one was assuming the mother was "bad" for going back to school to
    improve on herself. If the father could provide the same care she was
    before she went back to school,  it is his child also, why can't he
    take the physical responsibility to care for that child so the mother
    could get her act together..how many deadbeat dads do you think would
    want to take responsibility for their child?  this is nothing more
    than a woman excersing her control over the custody battles that
    plague our society and our court systems. It is so disgusting what I
    saw in court. Hysteria over what, control. If the childs best interest
    is at hand, it shouldn't be question in anyones mind. School is very
    difficult for a single person, let alone a single mother. If the father
    wants to take his responsibilities and care for his daughter, what is
    the f'en problem. It all sounds too personal for me. Personal should
    have nothing to do with the well being of a child. 
    If the child was NOT in school and didn't have district schooling to 
    change, what is the big deal of changing custody for the term of her 
    schooling to alieviate some home responsibilities that the mom would have 
    to incure while trying to concentrate on her grades and getting a real
    education instead of going to school to say"well, I went to better myself"
    an not really learning anything. She could still visit whenever she 
    pleased...I'm confused as to why we as society punish the men who want to 
    take fully responsibility of their children...it is a complete abomination
    of the privilege to be a parent. It totally sickens me that society
    punishes the responsible with selfish excuses and perpetuates this
    sickness called control. 
    

    The Dad wasn't planning on taking care of the child himself, though.
    He would not be taking 'physical responsibility' for the child - he
    was going to have *his* mother do that.

    Well, the mother of this child also has a mother who can do this 
    just as well (so there's never been a need to try to change the 
    custody arrangements for the child at all.)

    As it happens, the mother wanted to have the child in the college
    daycare (where she would be easily visited during the day, etc.)

    'Daycare' is unbelievably crazy as grounds for changing custody.

    (If daycare is so horribly bad, then why don't we insist that all
    single mothers of small children quit their jobs and go on Welfare
    to escape the horrors of daycare?)

    Instead, we insist that single mothers FIND Daycare so that they
    can be productive members of society.

    They can't have it both ways:  Telling women that they can't stay
    at home, then taking away their children if they do go out to work.
    It's preposterous.

    .422
    
    You keep beating this dead horse and it just ain't gonna run no more.
    
    There are two basic reasons why mothers wind up as single parents.  One
    is unfortunate the other is subject to debate.
    
    When a stable, in-tact family is available the most optimum situation
    is to have a stay-at-home parent take care of the child/children.  This
    is the best situation.  Assuming, of course, that the parents are not
    unfit.
    
    In the situation where the parent is an only parent, then they need to
    do what is necessary to be productive members of society and carry
    their own weight.  This is not as preferable as an in-tact family with
    a stay-at-home parent.
    
    A single parent does what they need to do and being on welfare is not
    one of them if earning a living is available.
    
    In the situation you want to distort, the father has as much right to
    the child as the mother.  If he wants totake care of the child, he
    should be allowed to.  the mother is going to be going to school and
    needs the time to study and work.  This leaves little if any time for
    the child.  the father is willing to take care of the child and give
    them quality time while having a grandparent watch them during the day.
    
    You are a scream as using double standards.  It has really become trite
    at this point and you should really chose a new song and dance.
    

    RE: .423  Rocush

    > In the situation you want to distort, the father has as much right to
    > the child as the mother.  If he wants totake care of the child, he
    > should be allowed to.  

    Children aren't property.  You can't just toss them from one household
    to another without very good reason.  Daycare wasn't a good reason
    to uproot that little girl, especially when all the judge had to do
    was to ask the mother to have *HER* mother care for the child all
    day (which is what she did do all during the court process.)

    > the mother is going to be going to school and needs the time to study 
    > and work.  This leaves little if any time for the child.  

    Have you ever been a single mother raising a child while going to
    college as a fulltime day student?  No?  Well, I have.

    Not only did we stay close all during my college years, I was still
    breast-feeding him halfway through my Junior year.

    It takes creativity - and the young mother in question sounds well
    able to be creative about the situation.  (In my case, I arranged
    my classes some semesters so that I had three hour breaks to spend
    lunchtime with my son.  I drove us on my bicycle to the beach and 
    we spent a leisurely time on a blanket under a tree - we played, 
    we nursed, and he napped in my arms.)  It was wonderful!

    > the father is willing to take care of the child and give them 
    > quality time while having a grandparent watch them during the day.

    Who is "them"?  This is a child we're talking about.

    My son would have been horrified if some authority had come along 
    to decide that he'd be better off living somewhere else during those
    years.  We were little partners in the world - he knew my school
    campus like the back of his hand from going there with me (and it
    was a huge campus) - plus, he was hired as a child performer at the
    TV station where I worked (so he often came to work with me.)

    I was also allowed to take him to work with me as often as I liked 
    at my other job at a cable TV station.  I was an engineer in a room 
    by myself, and they didn't mind if I brought him as long as he didn't
    touch anything important.  Most of the time, I just watched TV
    settings (after starting up TV shows on three of our channels and
    making the proper signal adjustments.)

    My son sat on my lap during most of my shift - we talked and cuddled,
    then ate dinner.  At the appropriate time, he crawled into his sleeping
    bag and slumbered peacefully next to my chair.  We both loved it.

    It was tough for me to keep up with school during all this (I didn't
    get the 4.0 GPA that I received for my second Bachelors degree), but
    I was one of the few seniors who was asked to teach at my school.
    (I was a Philosophy major who taught English Poetry and Drama for the
    English department in the Senior Seminar Program.)

    I also won one of the biggest awards at my school:  The English
    Department's Creative Writing Award.

    So I did ok, and my son and I thrived together.  He knew beyond a
    shadow of a doubt that he was my inspiration for going to school
    and that when I finished, it was his victory as well as mine.

    So don't tell me that a single mother in college doesn't have time
    for quality time with a child.  I know it's not true.        

    (Hey, and don't bother going ballistic on me again.  It doesn't 
    shake me up at all, and I don't want to have to worry about your
    health.)

>Note 238.402              is it money or gender/race???               402 of 407
>SPECXN::CONLON                                       16 lines   3-SEP-1996 12:25
    
>        -< Fixing discrimination will impact white males, regardless. >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    RE: .398  Steve Keith
    
>    >	PUNITAVE - punishing someone (my sons for example) who have had
>    >	           nothing to do with discriminating against anyone.
>    
>    Your daughters and minority children (if you have any) didn't do
>    anything to deserve the discrimination they will face all their
>    lives.  We have to work on fixing this, and everyone shares in 
>    the burdens of this fix.
    
    
    Many of the myths have already been debunked about exactly equal jobs,
    experience etc. Everyone DOES NOT share the burden of YOUR presumed
    problem.
    
>    There isn't a reason in the world why we should hold off on fixing
>    the discrimination against women and minorities on the basis that
>    we must find a solution that doesn't impact white males in any
>    possible way.  
    
Read above and get the facts, not something that has been lied about over and
    over again    
    
>    This would amount to giving special privileges to white males.
    
    Bad white males
    
    MY SONS HAVE _NO_ SPECIAL PRIVLEGES  NONE! Can you understand that.
    
    If you cannot, Name a special privilege that my 19 year old son has. Be
    specific and use his name too.

>Note 238.385              is it money or gender/race???               385 of 425
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    15 lines   3-SEP-1996 11:07
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> No one ( Suzzanne or Atlant et. al.) has answered whether this young
>> lady should have given her school seat up to some more deserving
>> minority.
>
>  I don't know enough about the facts or statistics of the
>  matter to have a firm opinion. Furthermore, it will be
>  litigated (and no one has asked me to file an amicus brief)
>  so I can stand to wait for the final outcome of the case.

    EXAMPLE from Boston Latin:
    
    Person A has better test scores than person B
    
    
    Case #1: Person A is white male person B is woman.
    
    Case #2: Person A is this woman, person B is a more minor minority
    
    In case #1 you have no more "facts" than in case #2, yet you presume to
    feel that you may make a blanket statement that the white male should
    have barriers/higher hurtles placed in his way even if he has better
    scores than person B. Claiming that you don't have the "facts" in case
    #2 is a typical liberal cop out when presented with a logical argument 
    against an illogical stance or statement. You have the same quanitity
    and quality of facts in both cases. The only difference is your
    unsuportable position showing through!
    
    If YOU feel so frimly about this matter, why don't you give up some
    position you or your son have to a more deserving person? Oh, you just
    want me and my sons to. I understand now... 8-)

    .424
    
    You have identified a situation that more likely than not does not
    apply to very amny people.  If you were working in a factory you would
    not have had the same flexibility, nor should you.  If you were working
    in retail, same thing.  There are numerous other situations that would
    not lend themselvves to the same results.  You were lucky, not many
    people are.
    
    Also, the father has as much right to his child as does the mother. 
    Period.  There is no special right that a mother should have, if
    indeed, you truly believe in equality.
    
    He was going to be home evenings adnw eekends without interference or
    demanding school schedule.  He should have had custody.
    
    Also, please provide the facts to support your earlier claim about the
    discrimination that people ARE going to face.  You apparently haven't
    had time to provide those yet, unless, of course, you have nothing
    other than personal opinion to support your claim.
    

    .415 Tell us what are these 500 cases. Why not name them all. List them
     all, less your the fool who is trying to fool us..... IF your the
    brave heart that you claim to me. Your personally invited to come for a
    ride with me and attend a Fathers meeting. You will not be tipped off
    of your political views, you can really see some good cases, vs listing
    to us whine here about the woes of having a penis. You at ZKO so its
    not like your on the other side of the planet.... time to put up or
    shut up...

    RE: .427  Rocush

    > You have identified a situation that more likely than not does not
    > apply to very amny people.  If you were working in a factory you would
    > not have had the same flexibility, nor should you. 

    Does the mother of this young child work in a factory?  No.

    She goes to school, and the thing she was trying to do (that got her
    into trouble) was to take her child to school with her.  Having the
    little girl on campus gave them opportunities to see each other,
    and the mother was able to do her studying on campus (while the child
    was in daycare) so that her NIGHTS and WEEKENDS were free to spend
    with the child.

    This young mother is a student-only.  I was a full-time student who
    held down two part-time jobs (yet I was able to continue nursing
    my son and spending a great deal of time with him.)

    She is luckier - she has far more free time than I ever had.

    > He was going to be home evenings adnw eekends without interference or
    > demanding school schedule.  He should have had custody.

    He worked during the day - she went to school and studied during the
    day.  There was never a reason to make a big change in the child's
    life (by having her move to another household.)

    > Also, the father has as much right to his child as does the mother. 
    > Period.  There is no special right that a mother should have, if
    > indeed, you truly believe in equality.

    The child is not a piece of property (like a car) that can simply
    be moved to another parking lot.  She was around 4 years old when
    this custody fight occurred - if you're going to move a 4 year old
    to a new residence without the parent she's lived with all her
    life, you need a better reason than 'daycare' (especially when
    the child's mother also has a mother who can provide care during
    the day *and* the mother has her nights and weekends free to spend
    with the child as much as the challenging father does.)

    
    It is the _child's_ right that he/she live with the parent best capable
    of caring for the needs of the child.  And the _financial_ part 
    sure seems to be a _major_ consideration when it comes to "child
    support".  I've seen men lose custody over a _lot_ less than because he 
    was going to school, and I've yet to see NOW _or_ ACLU come to _their_
    aid.  About all rehashing this argument (yet again) is doing at this 
    point is providing us with (yet another) example of the point I made 
    about the "champions" of "equality" and the hollowness of their argument.
    Thus the point about the stated goal not being the 
    real goal.

    fred();

    It is the **CHILD'S** right not to be uprooted from the household she
    has lived in since birth because some judge has a hair across his
    backside about 'daycare'.  Such a big change in a 4 year old's life
    has to be for very, very good reasons.
    
    If you want single mothers to support themselves (so that the taxpayers
    don't have to stay up nights worrying that some stranger is getting
    their precious tax dollars in order to feed her child), then you don't
    threaten single mothers with losing custody if they actually go out
    and acquire the skills to support themselves.

    It's a Catch-22, pure and simple.

    Those who are so anxious to trap these single mothers into a 'damned
    if you do and damned if you don't' situation are bound and determined
    to accuse everyone who agrees with the mother's right to get an
    education as 'NOT REALLY WANTING EQUALITY' as a result.

    It doesn't matter - the only way such people would ever be willing
    to see that the fight for equality is really a fight for equality
    would be if this fight STOPPED.

    
    I've seen children uprooted over a lot less when the father was
    the custodial parent.  I've seen the "don't uproot the child" 
    argument used to send children into some real unsavory situations.
    Yet I hear not a peep from the oh-so-compasionate-when-the-mother-
    is-is-at-issue crowd.  You keep trying to rathole this discussion
    into another custody argument.  The point of the discussion is
    the shallowness of the "equality" crowd.  The point of the example
    was how the "equality" crowd is so hypocritically selective in
    the "equality" they support,  and you've just provided us with 
    yet another prime example.

    fred();

    Suzanne-
    
    I think you're missing the basic concept here-that being that the 
    father should have as much right to custody as the mother.  I only
    vaguely remember the case to which you are referring, so I won't
    comment specifically on that, however, if a situation were similar,
    with a young child, the couple separates and prior to a custody
    hearing, the mother retains (for lack of a better term) custody,
    why is the default STILL that the mother is the best parent?  If
    all things being equal, (ie: both parents in school or working with
    supplemental assistance in childcare for said duration) why should
    custody automatically default to the mother?  I do believe this is
    the inequity which Fred and many other men here are specifically
    interested in fighting.

    The point of this discussion is that those who fight equality tooth
    and nail are disingenuous when they accuse those who do fight for
    equality of not really wanting equality.
    
    They cry and claim, "Oh, but I have no problem with equality", but 
    they put every obstacle they can find in the way of it.
    

    re. .434
    
    So now I'm attacked for daring to question the sincerity of the 
    so-called equal-rights crowd?
    
    If you weren't so obviously blinded by your own bias, you'd realize
    that you've just described yourself perfectly.  So is it now time
    to trash the note (again) so it gets shut down (again)?
    
    fred();

    re .434
    
>>     The point of this discussion is that those who fight equality tooth
>>        and nail are disingenuous when they accuse those who do fight for
>>        equality of not really wanting equality.
    
         
    
    
    Suzzanne we all know that you are not interested in equality, just more
    advantages for yourself and your cause like SOME of the other women.  The
    more you get the better you feel, no matter how many men have to pay...
    There is no reason why a man should be treated EQUALLY when it comes
    down to children and custody and child support.  Men should pay for the
    child and the woman and like it right?  Is'nt that how you really feel?
    Oh and if a woman does not want to pay child support or take any
    responsability, thats OK in your eye's because the fact that she is a
    woman, she must be a good person right?  Suzzanne, have a nice day will
    ya ;) 
    
>>        They cry and claim, "Oh, but I have no problem with equality", but
>>        they put every obstacle they can find in the way of it.
    
    
     Men in general are not putting anything in your way, you seem to
    be just doing fine like most women I see today...
    

    Christine, I think you lack the skills to read my mind and you 
    misjudge my ability to 'catch' the basic concept you describe.

    Aside from joint custody (which I think is great), custody will
    go to one parent or the other.  If both parents have the right
    to custody, a decision must still be made between the parents
    (unless you want to cut the child in half.)

    Custody most often goes to the mothers because (let's face it)
    most fathers do not want or ask for custody.

    If the father does ask for custody, the right thing to do (IMO)
    is to discover who the child's primary parent is.  In our society,
    the mothers are still most often the primary parents.  (Not in
    all cases, but in most cases where one primary parent stands out.)

    So, if we want more fathers to get custody, we need to change our
    culture's attitude about what men (and women) do.  We need to make
    it a much more supported choice for men to be the primary parents
    as often as women at the same time that we make it a much more
    *possible* choice for women to be a primary bread-winner as often
    as men.

    When the workplace truly opens up to women (as equal partners in
    our species and our world), childcare won't be seen as "women's work"
    and being a breadwinner won't be seen as "a man's domain".

    Then, we'll have a situation where it's just as common for the 
    full-time homemaker to be the father (as it is in Meg's household
    already), and we'll all be on more equal ground in the workplace
    and in the home.

    This is equality.  Taking custody away from a single mother on the
    basis that she sends her child to daycare is pure idiocy.

    You know, I've been going through some very, very difficult times in my
    personal life, and I had hoped that this notes conference would be
    useful to me in some way. I hoped it would be like talking to friends
    about common problems and experiences.
    
    Instead, I find people standing on their soapboxes, yelling, puffing
    themselves up.  Too bad.
    
    Bye now.
    
    -Steve

    RE: .436  Dom
    
    > Suzzanne we all know that you are not interested in equality,
    
    Dom, it's obvious that the last thing on this Earth that you will
    ever want or accept is equality.
    
    You will fight for your male advantages until your dying breath.
    

    RE: .435  Fred
    
    > So now I'm attacked for daring to question the sincerity of the 
    > so-called equal-rights crowd?
    
    Why does it become an 'attack' when I make the same accusation to you
    that you must made to me?
    
    Do you have special privileges in our society?

    Well, Steve Ruzich is right.  Arguing about all this is no good.
    
    Building walls never solves anything.  Some bridges might help, though.

    
    re .441
    
    >    Building walls never solves anything.  Some bridges might help, though.
    
    My concern is that, so far, most of the "bridges" have been posted
    <---ONE WAY--- .
    
    fred();

    re .440
    
>    Why does it become an 'attack' when I make the same accusation to you
>    that you must made to me?
    
    When it's done in the manner you've done it.  After your so obvious
    bias, yes.
    
    >Do you have special privileges in our society?
    
    Actually the only "privilege" is that I am now over 40 and am protected
    against age discrimination.  Other than that the "privileges" in our
    society now go to other genders and other races than the one to which
    I belong.
    
    fred();

    Pardon me for interjecting some facts in the Michigan college custody
    case.
    
    1.  Fact.  Father had no interest in custody, or even visiting his
    daughter until the mother asked for an increase in child support.  (she
    wanted to go from 20 to 40/month)
    
    2.  Fact.  this "father" had almost no contact during the first year of
    his daughter's life voluntarily, by his own admission.  His mother
    occaisionally sat her grandduaghter.  
    
    Now tell me how a parent who was uninterested in his flesh and blood
    for several years suddenly makes a better parent than the current
    custodial parent?

    
    re .444
    
    You keep stepping right into it.  The argumen is not about whether
    this particular mother or father should have gotten custody.  It
    is about those who preach "equal rights" and expose their agenda
    with their actions by supporting only one side of the "equality".
    
    As far as "bridges" go.  Maybe we could start with something like
    California's Proposition 109 which would ammend the California
    Constitution to say that it would be illegal to discriminate against
    _or_ for _anyone_ on the basis of thier race, gender, religion or
    creed.
    
    fred();

    Thanks for the FACTS, Meg.  
    
    Much of the argument in this topic *has* been about this specific
    case (with many suggesting that the father was better able to provide
    for the child than the mother.)  What a laugh.
    
    If a child support change from $20 to $40 per month was the only
    thing that could get him to finally express an interest in having
    custody of his child (when he didn't even see the child during
    her early life), he's hardly the best parent for this little girl.
    

    re .446
    
>    Much of the argument in this topic *has* been about this specific
>    case (with many suggesting that the father was better able to provide
>    for the child than the mother.)  What a laugh.
    
    The only argument about this actual case has been the attempt to
    rat-hole and trash another note.  The case was presented as an
    example as to how NOW only comes to the aid of women, if at all,
    then sits on their high horse proclaiming "discrimination in
    any form is bad".  If equality is their true goal, then it must
    be equality for _everybody_.
    
    fred();

    Several people have argued that the father should have gotten 
    custody in this specific case.  
    
    You can't erase that because the facts now show that this guy
    is in NO WAY the best parent for this particular child.
    

    Fred-
    
    You can't have it both ways.  The most recent string was about that
    particular case, with some wanting to broaden the subject to question
    why fathers cannot be considered equal to mothers in custody cases.
    
    All Meg did was provide some pointers to the case which was brought
    up earlier and used (by you, if I'm not mistaken) to support your
    perceived opinion that NOW is not for equality.
    
    Meg-thanks for the refresher.  I had thought I recalled something about
    the party of the father not having show interest before, that's why I
    asked Suzanne a broader question.
    
    Suzanne-forgive my presumption, I'd rather gotten the impression that
    your response to Fred wrt mother vs. father in custody was not answered
    and that you were arguing a different point than he was raising.
    
    Suzanne-you further raise some good points about the work place,
    however, I don't know about your peers, but I look at my peers and of
    the married couples I know, pay rates don't differ much between .50-
    1.00 per hour between spouses, generally 1/2 of the couple makes more
    than the other 1/2 for part of the year and then when the other 1/2
    gets reviewed it reverses.  Not much in the way of statistics, just
    what I live and see about how those around me live.  I see more and
    more of an *equal* bread winner status in homes these days than one of
    *primary* breadwinner.  Most of the couples I know have also got the
    shared household duties down to a pretty equitable science.  I have
    no personal data on the child issue as I'm only close to one couple so
    blessed (?!), but in that case, both parents are equally involved in
    the development of their children.  I can relate to the frustration 
    that some of the men here have lived in their battles for their
    children to the point where I can see where the bitterness comes from
    and I have to say, yeah, they're right, it ISN'T fair.  Life isn't
    fair, but we try to correct other inequities, why does this one rate
    less importance?  

Dom:

    
> Suzzanne we all know that you are not interested in equality, just more
> advantages for yourself and your cause like SOME of the other women.

  Actually, Dom, *WE* *DON'T* all know that. Last time I checked,
  I qualified for the group I think you're attempting to speak for,
  and I *MOST CERTAINLY* don't agree with your statement.

                                   Atlant

    
    One more time.  The point was not whether the father should have 
    gotten custody.  For the purposes of this discussion, that argument
    is irrelevant.  The point is if NOW comes to the aid of anyone,
    if at all, it is the woman.  ACLU has more often as not argued against
    equality for white men than for.  If men are discriminated against, well
    then, to them, that's just too bad.  And that does not point to 
    someone who is concerned about equality.
    
    fred();

    If NOW had much involvement at all in this case (as I recall, the
    mother was represented by a good lawyer and a host of women's groups),
    the main point was the precedent which might have been set by this
    case.

    As I've been arguing all along, it would have been a destructive
    and dangerous message to single mothers that they could lose custody
    of their children by using daycare (at a time when society is
    yelling at women that they better support their children, OR ELSE.)

    It was the possible precedent that made the news.  Custody cases
    don't ordinarily get national coverage.

    The danger of this precedent was the reason that women's groups got
    involved.  They wouldn't have joined the fight if it was a simple
    custody dispute.

    re Atlant.
    
    I'm not surprised by your statement at all but the facts remain.
    
    Women don't have to pay support and are not forced to by most laws
    period.
    
    My point is that most of you on the beat up the white man ban wagon
    don't want equality but just the opposit.  I am a first generation
    white male.  My family did not live in the US when all of this stuff
    was going on.  If you trully believe that discrimination against white
    males is OK then you my friend are a sick person and there are many
    names that come to mind, you know the names that were thrown around
    like bigot ect.  Treating a person differently because of race, gender
    or religious beliefs is wrong period and thats what you are agreeing
    with, period.  There is such a small percentage of white males whith
    any kind of power it really boggles the mind.  Most of the people with
    power are people with lots of money.  Why pick on the poor white man
    when it really is the rich people (NOTE: Not just white men either)
    who hold us down and supress freedom.  Today, the average person has
    become a slave to the goverment and their programs that only benefit a 
    few people.  So, why don't you and your cronies go somewhere else and
    ratehole all of the discussions.  We are talking truths as we have
    experienced, we are not making these things up.  I have had alot of
    crap happen to me in my life because of these screwed up one sided laws
    that are made up because of these whining, yelling sick special
    interest groups.   What I would like to see is in fact total equality,
    not the onesided only give me the good benefits of equality and drop
    the rest mentality.  I can bet that if the laws were screwing you all
    up Atlant, we would probably here a different tune from you, but I'm
    sure you will disagree with that also.
    
    Dom

    RE: .453  Dom
               
    > I am a first generation white male.  

    If you're the first generation of a white male in your family, 
    what were your parents, grandparents, etc?  African-American 
    or Hispanic women?

    Put your virtual guns down, Dom.  You're talking to Atlant, who is 
    another white male ("your kind", right?) and he sees the value and 
    the necessity of the fight for equal rights for women and minorities.

    According to you, he can't possibly get any advantage from this
    fight, and he's downright screwing himself and his white male child.

    Obviously, Atlant knows that this fight is *just* and that it will
    help us all, one way or another.  Your mileage happens to vary,
    that's all.

        re .454

>    Obviously, Atlant knows that this fight is *just* and that it will
>    help us all, one way or another.  Your mileage happens to vary,
>    that's all.

    Boy, talk about someone who is _determined_ to prove my point for me.
    Most men men knew/know that discrimination is wrong.  That's why things
    changed. Too bad some of these "minority" groups can't see it also. 
    To continue to use this "equality" and "just" argument under todays 
    circumstance, given evidence that the goal is no longer for equality
    or for justice, is getting old.

    fred();

    Fred, don't state other people's goals for them.  Such statements
    are unsupported and unwarranted, and you know that you would never
    stand for such things to be said about you.

    If you state that you believe in equality, you fight vigorously
    if anyone says that you don't.

    So don't make such claims about other people.

    And, if you consider being told that YOU are 'an example' as an
    attack, then don't do this to others, either.
    
    Thank you.

Re: 238.437 (CONLON):

|    Christine, I think you lack the skills to read my mind and you 
|    misjudge my ability to 'catch' the basic concept you describe.


Re: 238.439 (also CONLON):

|    RE: .436  Dom
|    
|    > Suzzanne we all know that you are not interested in equality,
|    
|    Dom, it's obvious that the last thing on this Earth that you will
|    ever want or accept is equality.
|    
|    You will fight for your male advantages until your dying breath.
    

Interesting double standard.

    re .254  
    
    Gee Suzzanne, you mean that you did'nt know that I meant in this
    country when I was saying first generation white male... I guess I will
    really have to talk as simple as possible so you can understand.  I'm
    sorry for not talking more simple so you could understand.  Is this
    better??? ;)

When it comes to custody, it can be difficult to judge what is in the best
interests of the children.

For example, I've had custody of my three kids since my divorce in 1991.  A year
ago, my ex, who had re-married, had a baby and retired to fulltime homemaker (her
word), sued me for custody of the three kids, based upon the idea that she would
be home fulltime.

She lost.

Why?  Because she would have moved them to another town, 30 miles away, removing
them from the school system and home where they've lived for four years now.

It's never black and white.  We probably can't judge what happened in somebody
else's case without having a whole lot more details than the news media would
ever provide.  It's pointless to try, IMHO.

tim

    RE: .458  Dom
    
    Your spelling and grammar are so poor that I take nothing at all for
    granted when I read your notes.
    
    I consider who is writing them, then I take the simplest meaning
    possible (so that I make sure I'm reading on your level.)

    
>    Fred, don't state other people's goals for them.  Such statements
>    are unsupported and unwarranted, and you know that you would never
>    stand for such things to be said about you.
    
    Maybe you should check for the 2x4 in your own eye before trying to
    look for the splinter in someone else's.
    
    fred();

    RE: .462  Fred
    
    > Maybe you should check for the 2x4 in your own eye before trying to
    > look for the splinter in someone else's.
    
    Take your own advice, Fred.
    

    
    >> -< Don't make claims about others goals when you don't permit same. >-
    
    Why?  You certainly haven't been shy about doing it?
    
    fred();

    re .461
    Hey, I'm doing this inbetween things so go ahead and trash my writting
    skills.  You should be in grade 1 for social skills and of course I
    knew you would find another way of attacking men that has nothing to do
    with the subject at hand.  As always, you attack and rathole every
    subject until your satisfied or the note get write locked.  And we know
    that you are such a brain that it must really hurt to convers with us
    lowley educated men.  I only have 6 years of college and I'm sorry I
    don't meet with your expectations.  Why don't you go to a conference
    named BIGHD::GODIMSOSMART.NOTE and stay there where you will enjoy
    conversing with well educated (so dam smart I can't stand it) people
    and leave us lowly educated men alone.
    
    Thank you very much...
    
    Sighned:  Grouned to Earth
    
    

    Dom, you made condescending remarks to me about my supposedly not 
    being capable of 'understanding' your notes, so I fired back at you.

    Don't use your virtual guns if you can't take it when someone doesn't
    run for cover when you shoot.  :>
          

    Well, I think we've had enough fun for one day.
    
    Is there a diplomatic solution to all the problems we've been
    discussing here?  
    
    Is all-out war inevitable, or do we have a way to work things out?
    

    re .467
    
    >    Is all-out war inevitable, or do we have a way to work things out?
    
    Don't know.  Men are just beginning to wake up to what is really
    going on.  If there is hope, those who champion equality are going
    to have to start supporting it for _everybody_.  And as I pointed
    out, given California Proposition 109, that may have begun too.
    
    If NOW and ACLU are serious about thier statement that _any_
    discrimination is wrong, the I applaud their efforts.  However, as 
    someone said somewhere, "By their actions, not thier words, shall ye 
    know them".
    
    fred();

    
    No, I was asking about a diplomatic solution (not hostile takeovers.)
    
    What do we do (together) to solve the problems we have been discussing?
    

    
    As Ronnie told Jimmie:  There you go again!
    
    fred();

    Regarding the ACLU, they defended Neo-Nazis who were being prevented
    from marching in Illinois awhile back [while the ACLU was holding 
    their noses, probably], so they are the last people who should be
    accused of being selective about their cases.

    Neo-Nazis are the ultimate right-wingers in this country.
    
    The ACLU took a lot of heat for that one (and some other cases 
    where they fought for the liberties of the bad guys), but they 
    did it anyway.

    
    Do we have a diplomatic solution to the problems we've been discussing?
    

    re .471
    
>    The ACLU took a lot of heat for that one (and some other cases 
>    where they fought for the liberties of the bad guys), but they 
>    did it anyway.
    
    In that case the ACLU was supporting Free Speach, not equal rights.
    The fact that they caught a lot of heat says more about the state
    of things than the fact that the ACLU defended the group.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, you wanted to see the ACLU defend all kinds of people, and
    they have already done this.
    
    Neo-Nazis are almost as extreme right-wing as one can get.
    

    
    > Do we have a diplomatic solution to the problems we've been discussing?
    
    All I've been asking for all along is _equal_ rights for _everybody_.
    Unfortunately I get the uneasy feeling, for reasons stated already,
    that the "diplomatic solution" desired is Unconditional Surrender.
    I'm not ready for that one.  How 'bout you?
    
    fred();

     
    Diplomatic solutions are the antitheses of unconditional surrenders.

    This means that people put down their guns and converse with civility.

    Is this possible or not?

    

    re .474

>    Fred, you wanted to see the ACLU defend all kinds of people, and
>    they have already done this.

    Defending Freedom of Speech is not the same as defending equal
    rights.  Try again?  As soon as they start defending the civil
    rights of white men (and as we've seen there is plenty opportunity
    for them to do so) as well as the other "minorities", then you
    may have a point.

    fred();

    So, the ACLU is another group that can do nothing right as far as
    you're concerned.
    
    Fine.  Noted.
    

    
    >Diplomatic solutions are the antitheses of unconditional surrenders.
    
    Uncondition Surrender is the last diplomatic solution before death,
    but still a diplomatic solution.
    
>    This means that people put down their guns and converse with civility.
>
>    Is this possible or not?
    
    You tell me.  
    
    fred();
    

    
    Gee, I hadn't thought as far as seeing half of us DIE over all this.
    
    I do think it's possible for us to put our guns down, but I don't
    know how likely it is.
    
    If a true diplomatic solution (besides the one that manages to save
    us just barely from one side killing the other) is possible, where
    do we start?
    

    
>    If a true diplomatic solution (besides the one that manages to save
>    us just barely from one side killing the other) is possible, where
>    do we start?

    We start by working on true equality instead of using "equality" as
    just another 1990's doublespeek/doublethink for "give me what I want
    or you're a _bad_ person"?  White men have come a _long_ way in
    supporting equal rights.  Yet by the rhetoric of some of these
    minority groups you think we still lived in the Deep South of the
    1950's.

    We can start by working on _current_ equality instead of demanding
    that these groups must somehow "get even" for injustices that they
    did not personally suffer nor did white men of today commit.

    fred();

    
    Fred, your guns are still blazing.
    
    When you attack some group, where does the 'diplomatic' part come in?
    
    I'm talking about diplomacy here, not starting the Gulf War all over
    again.
    

    
    .482
    
    You asked where we start.  That's where we start.  Are my requests
    really _that_ outlandish?  Or as someone once said, "There is a peace 
    that lies only on the other side of war".
    
    Your turn.  What is your idea of a "diplomatic" solution?
    
    fred();

    
    We don't start a diplomatic solution with you blasting the hell out
    of the other side (unless you want to get blasted back, so that
    the blasting never stops.)
    
    This isn't a diplomatic solution.  It's insanity for human beings
    who share a species (not to mention sharing countries, homes and
    children.)
    
    Put the guns down.

    
    >    Put the guns down.
    
    Maybe you should explain to a dumb ol' ignorant country boy what you 
    mean by "put the guns down", then.
    
    fred();

    Sure there are Diplomatic solutions.  However in this case, it means
    true Equality, not modified to serve the self serving.  Let start with
    the big word EQUALITY can you say it and really mean it or do we go
    back to the ratehole of paying for the past injust of people who don't 
    even exist anymore in most cases.  Descrimination in any form is bad
    IMHO and to condone it is evil pure and simple evil.  

    
>    We don't start a diplomatic solution with you blasting the hell out
>    of the other side (unless you want to get blasted back, so that
>    the blasting never stops.)
    
    All I'm asking for is what those same groups were asking for 30 years
    ago.  What's so "blasting the hell out of" about that?
    
    fred();

    It means that we stop the accusations, the attacks and the demands.

    It means we decide to work together to solve the problems we've
    been discussing.

    You've been divorced, so you know that once a marriage gets to the
    point where there's nothing left but the accusations and the bitter
    resentment, all that's left is the amount of damage that each person
    can do to the other.

    Gender wars are like that, too.  So what if we all stopped that for
    a moment and tried to work together as members of the same species
    and countries to see how we could address the concerns of each side
    (without biting each other's heads off in the process)?

    If equality is at the core of the problem, the the first step,
    believe it or not, is DEFINING "equality".
    
    I think you'll find it's a non-trivial exercise. Things are never
    mathmatically "equal" unless they are of exactly the same class.
    This degree of equivalence rarely happens in human society. As one
    example, biology precludes treating men and women "equally" in
    matters of childbearing, and will until we switch over to a
    test-tube artificial womb approach. Etc.

    Paul, you're right on the money.
    
    Defining equality is the first step (and a very difficult one.)
    

    
    As a 10 year veteran of the custody wars, I may not know what equality
    is, but I sure's *&^% know what bigotry is, and more  what it has
    done to my children than to me.  As I indicated many notes back, I do 
    not practice it.  But since my kids and my ordeal, nothing much 
    on that account has changed, and going to "war" will probably not 
    change anything for me personally now, but it may change things for my
    kids.  Given that, going to "war" may be the lesser of evils.
    
    fred();

    
    So, you're simply determined to go to war rather than work things
    out peacefully, Fred.
    
    It's good to know.
    
    Maybe others are interested in a diplomatic solution?
    

    
>    So, you're simply determined to go to war rather than work things
>    out peacefully, Fred.
    
    There you go again.  I am perfectly willing to work things out
    peacefully, but I have this nagging suspicion that we have very
    different ideas what _things_ are.
    
    As Teddy Rosevelt said,  "Walk softly and carry a big stick".
    In other words.  Work it out peacefully if you can.  Go to "war"
    if you must.
    
    I have given what I consider a fair solution.  As I said, I'm
    only asking for what these same groups _said_ 30 years ago was
    what _they_ wanted.  I guess that's too much for white men
    to ask for?
    
    fred();

    Fred, if you set the terms before the first meeting, it's not a
    diplomatic solution.

    It's like when the Palestinians agreed to meet with the Israelis
    (after the Gulf War) on the pre-condition that Israel return all
    occupied territories before the first meeting.

    A diplomatic solution means that you do not set terms that YOU
    think are fair and demand that others go along with you.

    Try again.

    
    re .49
    
>    Fred, if you set the terms before the first meeting, it's not a
>    diplomatic solution.
    
    Again what is so outlandish about what I ask?  Nobody blames those
    other groups for going to "war" 30 years ago (sometimes literally,
    ie Watts).
    
    fred();

    
    If you walk into a diplomatic meeting with your guns blazing, 
    nothing will be solved (and war will be inevitable.)
    
    Stop at the door and remind yourself that the idea is to be
    willing to put the accusations and the resentments behind you
    (while we work together to solve the problems.)
    

    
    
>    If you walk into a diplomatic meeting with your guns blazing, 
>    nothing will be solved (and war will be inevitable.)
    
    You should know.
    
>    Stop at the door and remind yourself that the idea is to be
>    willing to put the accusations and the resentments behind you
>    (while we work together to solve the problems.)
    
    Ya'know.  One thing that makes me absolutely _nuts_ is hypocrisy.
    
    fred();

    
    Put the guns down, Fred.
    
    For once in your life.
    

    
    
>    Put the guns down, Fred.
>    
>    For once in your life.
    
    Your refusal to answer the question about what is so outlandisn about
    what I ask makes me strongly suspect that this litlle "peace maker"
    act is just that--an act.  I also suspect that your idea of a
    diplomatic solution is similar to the one N. Vietnam negotiated
    with Kisinger.
    
    fred();

    
    The guns aren't down yet, Fred.
    
    It's a difficult thing to do, I know.  Keep trying.
    

    
    >The guns aren't down yet, Fred.
>    
>    It's a difficult thing to do, I know.  Keep trying.
    
    
    Suzanne the peace maker.  Who would have thunk it.  
    
    fred();
    Ps. You still haven't answered my question.  

    
    We're a step closer.  Good!
    

    
    
    Suzanne,  I have no more to say to you about "negotiations"
    unless/until you answer my question.  Your refusal to answer the 
    question puts the lie to your act.  Gointo into "negotiations" asking 
    for nothing is, in itself, unconditional surrender.
    
    fred();

    
    You picked the guns back up.
    
    Diplomatic solutions don't start with one side calling the other
    side 'liars'.
    
    Both sides go into the negotiations with their concerns, of course,
    but making demands and insults before the first meeting doesn't
    usually bode well for the prospects of a peaceful settlement.
    

    
    Like I said.  Worry about the 2x4 in your own eye first.
    fred();

    
    Put the guns down.
    

    
    Worry about the 2x4 in your own eye first.
    

    
    Ok, so war is the only possible solution for you.  That's ok.
    
    Perhaps others can do better at working on a diplomatic solution.
    

    
    
    This "war" thing is just another 1990's doublespeak like "extreemest".
    War is where I role tanks into your neighborhood, kill everybody,
    and let God sort 'em out.  This accusation of "war" you keep making
    I find deeply offensive.  
    
    fred();

    
    Well, you did say that you believed that the war (which you think
    could help fathers, etc., in the future) 'may be the lesser of 
    two evils', Fred - so you've used the word yourself in this context.
    
    It doesn't matter, though.
    
    I still believe that a diplomatic solution is possible with some
    of the people engaged in this struggle.
    
    It's just a matter of finding the diplomats.  :>
    

    OK Suzzanne:
    
    My guns are down, are your?
    
    EQUALITY:
    
    You claim that my sons (do you recall their names) have special
    advantages. Once and for all. PLEASE NAME THEM!
    
    You want to PUNISH them. Please tell me what crime theyu are guilty of?
    
    UNTIL you can answer these questions, that have be in here more than
    100 replies ago, there is absolutely NOTHING to discuss with you!
    
    To have diplomatic discussions, you MUST examine the FACTS. Two of the
    FACTS are contained in the answers to the above questions. If you are
    REFUSING to answer these basic questions, YOU are refusing to have
    diplomatic descussions, not us.
    
    
    Steve

================================================================================
=Note 238.358              is it money or gender/race???               358 of 383
=SPECXN::CONLON                                       36 lines  30-AUG-1996 16:40
=                  -< Public schools are too broke as it is. >-
=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=    Some people have developed a mentality in this country that
=    anything related to the government is bad-bad-bad-bad-bad
=    and must be stamped out (unless it involves annihilating 
=    millions or billions of people, of course.)

1. And some people believe that anything the government does is good, good, 
   good.

2. Others believe in a little of both and the need for a balance

=    If some are so against the government, then why do they drive
=    on the roads and highways in this country?   They're the products
=    of the government, too.

See 2 above

=    Perhaps, if the 'other side' gets their way, we'll end up back
=    in the Old West (where everyone carries six-guns at their sides
=    and drives their wagons on dirt roads.)

Your version of 'other' peoples vision of the future.

=    The status quo *is* this backward-thinking, macho, we-hate-the-
=   government-because-we-love-our-guns-and-feel-like-we-may-not-
=    be-able-to-own-300-of-them-if-we-want-to-someday attitude that
=    tries to feed us the line that we can help American children
=    the most by spending *A LOT LESS MONEY ON THE BUGGERS*.

Your extreeme bias and true agenda are showing  8-)  

Tell you what, you must love guns a lot. You love you 'right' to an abortion.
Some people like their written into the constitution Right to own firearms.
You scream at any, any attempt to restrict your 'right' yet feel free to
'rule' over others lives and make life and death decsision for them. 


=    I'm for looking at the future (and what we can do to solve any
=    problems we have), rather than trying to live in some idealistic
=    B.S. past while tearing down and dismantling the entire government
=    (as if that will help somehow.)

Remember, there are two kinds of fools:

One fool says that everything old is better
Another fool says that everything new is better...

=    I trust the government far, far more than I trust those who want
=    to dismantle it.  

My country, right or wrong. Seems I heard this back in the 60's during Vietnam

=    It's only the government (and the growing number
=    of white males who do see things fairly) who keep women and
=    minorities from being permanently clobbered by the cowardly
=    bullies in this country.

Then you should favor choice in personal protection, right?



Steve

    I've been away from this for a few days and see that I have 
    missed *nothing*.  I've read from .250 up to .433 and give up.
    
    Neither side will change the other's mind.  Let's face it - 
    you can't even get the cobwebs out of the way to let a little
    sunlight in....
    
    How does either side have the energy to keep going at this?
    There is no end to it - how can this discussion be satisfying 
    to any of you?  Do you like feeling contempt and complete
    exasperation for your fellow noters?  
    
    This sure isn't a *constructive* debate....
    
    Sue

    RE: .514  Steve Keith
    
    You went back hundreds of notes to reply to some earlier comments,
    so I don't feel obligated at all to respond to your comments today.
    
    > Then you should favor choice in personal protection, right?
    
    Oh, I do.
    
    Within reason.
    

    RE: .513  Steve Keith

    > My guns are down, are your?

    You say your guns are down, then you fire some pretty hostile
    rounds at me.  Geeesh.

    > You claim that my sons (do you recall their names) have special
    > advantages. Once and for all. PLEASE NAME THEM!
    
    The special advantages they have is that they will be presumed to
    be more qualified than the women and minorities who compete with
    them.  If they make a wrong move, they won't have thousands of 
    years of old prejudices come crashing down on their heads, either.
    They won't be in a position to 'ruin things' for other white males,
    in other words.  They'll be judged on their own for any missteps.

    > You want to PUNISH them. Please tell me what crime theyu are guilty of?

    I have absolutely ZERO desire to punish your sons.  This is something
    you've concocted on your own.  My own beloved son is a white male.
    There's no way on this Earth I would seek to 'punish' him in this matter.

    What I said is that the problems of racial and sexual discrimination
    hurt society and we all share the burdens of fixing them.  Women and
    minorities haven't done anything to deserve what they have to go
    through in these problems, either, so why should we make special
    provisions to protect white males (such that, we only correct the
    problems in ways that can never have an impact on white males in
    any way.)  Solving the problems *will* have an impact on white males,
    regardless, so we can't protect them anyway (unless we refuse to
    solve the problems.)

    Now, I do realize that you see no problems at all for women and
    minorities.  We'll have to disagree on this one.

    So, I've answered your demands - now you can truly put your guns down.

    .516
    
    Wow, been away for a day and it's amazing that the same old stuff keeps
    getting listed.  You want to talk about negotiations and problem
    solving.  Gee, that sounds soooo good, but is absolutley untrue based
    on your own statments.
    
    I asked you numerous notes ago to support an inaccurate statement and
    instead of answering it, you merely repeat it in a different form.
    
    You start from the basic assumption that race, gender discrimination
    runs rampant today and white males have a free ride with no
    accountability..  I asked you before to support this contention with
    facts not opinion, you have not even bothered to try, but have repeated
    the same inaccuracies.
    
    Somehow you think that talking about negotiations absolves you of any
    necessity to support your contentions.  Such is not the case.
    
    If you really want to see progress and true equality then you need to
    stop making false statements.  that's the first palce discussions can
    begin.  Once you stop the errors and identify the actual areas that
    need attention, the solutions can be rapidly discussed and implented.
    
    Inaccurate ravings of supposed discrimination serve no purpose other
    than to identify that you have a particular bias and will not make the
    slightest attempt to modify your prejudice, but demand that others be
    "flexible" so you can remain fixed.
    

    Rocush, please quote me (directly, with pointers) to where I stated
    that 'white males have a free ride with no accountability'.
    
    If you're so concerned with false statements, I suggest you start
    with yours.
    
    Also, your hostility is pointless.  Put down your guns if you want
    to ask me anything else.
    

    .519
    
    I assumed you would be able to remeber what you wrote, but I will
    reprint your statement here for reference.  You stated in .516:
    
    
        The special advantages they have is that they will be presumed to
        be more qualified than the women and minorities who compete with
        them.
    
    This would indicate that you believe they have a free ride just by
    showing up.  If this isn't what you meant, then please explain exactly
    what this meant.
    
    Also, you can stop with your new line of putting down guns.  I don't
    have any, but I do have unanswered questions that you keep ignoring.  I
    have asked you numerous times to support your claim that rampant
    discrimination rules this country today.  I have given you numerous
    pointers to your statements, but you still refuse to answer.  I assume
    this means that you can not support them, but they really do sound
    good.  Too bad they're untrue.
    

    RE: .520  Rocush

    >> The special advantages they have is that they will be presumed to
    >> be more qualified than the women and minorities who compete with
    >> them.
    
    > This would indicate that you believe they have a free ride just by
    > showing up. 

    You're wrong.  This isn't what my statement means at all.

    My statement means exactly what it says - in our society, they are
    presumed (by default) to be more qualified than women and minorities.

    It doesn't mean that they don't have to do anything (at any time)
    or that the heavens open and red carpets roll out when they walk
    in the door (wherever they go), but it is an advantage to be
    regarded by default as being more qualified than other groups of
    people.

    As I also mentioned, if they make mistakes or wrong moves, they 
    don't have thousands of years of prejudice crash down on them
    (such that they 'ruin things' for other white males.)

    This kind of advantage is very hard to prove on a case by case basis,
    but I've seen the experiments which were done (to prove that this
    bias exists even in people who don't know they have it):

    	Managers were asked to choose between pairs of candidates.  
    	  Unbeknownst to the managers, among the candidates were two 
    	  sets of male and female candidates who 'swapped' qualifications 
    	  between the pairs.  

    		The male candidate had a great education but little
    		   experience.
    		The female candidate little college education but
    		   great experience.

    		The male candidate had little college education but
    		   great experience.
    		The female candidate had a great education but little
    		   experience.

    	In each case, they chose the male candidate.  They gave their
    	   reasons as follows:

    		In the first case, they said that the man's college
    		   education was most important because he could
    		   grow more in the future (even though he didn't
    		   have much experience now.)

    		In the second case, they said that education is good,
    		   but the man's experience would be more valuable
    		   since he would be productive right away.

    The managers had no idea they were finding reasons to choose the
    man in each case (even though the swapped credentials were identical
    for the pairs of candidates.)

    Now, I realize that you simply don't believe that discrimination
    exists for women and minorities.  We'll have to disagree on this.

    A couple of years ago, I saw an interview with a renowned college
    professor who went to various cities to give lectures in his field.
    He held the lectures at hotels, quite often.

    He said that every time he stood in the lobby before the lecture,
    it was almost a given that people would walk up to him and ask
    him to carry their bags to their rooms.

    He was wearing very expensive suits, but they presumed he was a
    bellhop.

    Yes, he's African-American.

    If a white male professor stood in his shoes (wearing the same suit)
    in a hotel lobby, not one person would walk up to him to ask him to
    carry bags to a room.  Not one.  Not ever.

    These are the presumptions which cause problems for some groups and
    create advantages for one other group.

    .521/2 So what documentation did you get this from? Or is this more of
    the smoking guns of peace?
    

    Someone who is no longer with Digital showed me these studies.
    
    If you don't want to believe any of this, then don't.  The main
    thing is that many women and minorities (and a growing number of
    white males) *know* that this is happening in our society, and
    the efforts to stop it aren't going to go away simply because
    some others don't happen to believe it.
    
    It's a real concern held by a great number of real people in this
    country.
    
    This dynamic was mentioned and discussed in the first several replies
    to this topic, in fact.
    
    We can work toward a peaceful settlement, but these concerns will
    continue to exist for quite a few people (one way or another.)

   >>  He was wearing very expensive suits, but they presumed he was a
   >>     bellhop.
    
    >>    Yes, he's African-American.
    
    >>    If a white male professor stood in his shoes (wearing the same
    >>suit)
    >>    in a hotel lobby, not one person would walk up to him to ask him to
    >>    carry bags to a room.  Not one.  Not ever.
    
    	Here you go again Suzzanne making statements that can't be proved
    but sound good to your cause.   If a white male professor stood in his
    shoes ect.  Did they actually put a white male professor dressed in the
    same way doing the same things?  No of course they did'nt but you try
    to make an argument that has not been tested or proved but you try to 
    make it sound as if it had.  Your opinions are just reflecting your
    agenda and have no valued content, just rhetoric.  We could all start
    talking like you but would not get anywhere.  You wonder why people
    attack you and your statements, well stop the baloney and the guns
    will come down.  Remember making untrue, unsubstantiated comments
    and what is really just your wharped opion will bring the guns up 
    every time.

    Hey, fine.
    
    Whatever.
    

    Hey How about that Boston Latin young lady...?
    
    NO one has answered yet...? except Atlant with his 'not enough data'
    lame excuse although it was pointed out that he has just as much info
    on discriminating against a male.
    
    But no matter.
    
    First rule of negotations is that you must respect the other person and
    be willing to talk facts.
    
    "It is presumed..."  By you, mot by many others in this conference. 

Steve, Al, fred, Dom:

  I'm elsewhere. I've decided you're not going to be convinced
  of anything so I agree with Sue Chilton: There's no point
  wasting the bytes.
                                   Atlant

    Steve, my 'take' on the Boston Latin young woman is as follows...

    Sit down and take a deep breath before you read my response, because
    it probably goes against the most basic morsel of your being.

    Here goes:

    		  I can see both sides of this particular case.

    Now, before you hurt yourself by jumping to the wild conclusion that
    I've changed my mind on my politics, just stop (take another deep breath)
    and read what I said:  I can see both sides of this particular case.

    It doesn't mean that I see *your* side (unless you happen to be her
    lawyer or the lawyer for the school.)  I see both sides of this
    particular case, no more no less.

    I know that everything in life is supposedly black and white, with
    good vs. evil (and nothing in between.)  Like Dennis Hopper said in
    Apocalypse Now, "either you love something or you HATE it", etc.

    Sometimes, it's possible to see the merits of both the principles in
    a particular case.  So be it.

    Let's see what the courts do with this one.

    .522
    Well let me tell you from first hand experience that you are wrong with
    your example, but first let me ask how old your first ahnd knowledge of
    a test done at Digital is?  If it's several years old then it lacks
    credibility.  A lot has changed in 10 years, but that odesn't mean that
    there still aren't bigots out there.  One case does little to support
    your position.
    
    But, anyway as far as your professor example is concerned.  We were at
    a very nice hotel for an Easter brunch.  I was wearing black slacks and
    a collarless white shirt.  I was on my way to the bruch table and had a
    woman ask me for a cup of coffe.  I told her I did not work there, but
    would ask someone to help her.  A while later I was on my way back from
    the men's room and had the same thing happen.
    
    It turned out that the waiters, which were a mixed racial group, were
    dressed similar to my clothing.  It was a very simple mistake to make
    and meant nothing to me.  I believe the same is true with your example. 
    The professor was dressed in the fashion of the rest of the bellboys,
    or similar to how bellboys normally dress.  He would not have been
    approached if he was dressed differently than the rest.
    
    I didn't take offense nor see anything sinister nor should anyone else
    unless you are looking for something that doesn't exist.
    

    Belhops don't wear $2000 suits.  
    
    Business people do wear such expensive clothes.  They asked him to
    carry their bags (while they ignored all the attendees to the
    conference who were wearing reasonably priced and expensive suits,
    but who happened to be white.)
    
    If you've ever seen an expensive suit, you know what I'm talking about.
    

    .531
    
    Excuse me, but Ihave been in numerous hotels and find your story just a
    bit preposterous.  But, accepting the fact that he may have  had $2000
    suit on, was it the same color as the rest of the bell hops.
    
    If he had $2000 blue suit on and the rest of the bellhops had black
    suits with gold trim on I would find it just about impossible to accept
    the contention, unless there was aKKK convention taking place in the
    hotel.
    

    .528  Atlant
    
    Atlant, I'm convinced that discrimination is wrong no matter who is
    doing it period.  If you invoke reverse discrimination and think that
    is the answer, you are dead wrong.  Two wrongs do not make a right,
    they only escalate things and create alot more problems.  We have made
    the laws against discrimination and enforce it, that should be good 
    enough.  If they want to provide more education to minorities and
    poor people who just can't afford it then fine. Discrimination divides
    this country and does nothing to unite it.
    
    Dom
    

|    He said that every time he stood in the lobby before the lecture,
|    it was almost a given that people would walk up to him and ask
|    him to carry their bags to their rooms.
|
|    He was wearing very expensive suits, but they presumed he was a
|    bellhop.

Perhaps, but this happens to me too - and I'm of Irish decent - and look it.  I
typically wear $500 suits.  Bellmen (not "belhops") don't wear $500 suits
either.

|    Belhops don't wear $2000 suits.  

Most people wouldn't know a 'very expensive suit' from a moderately priced one
unless the price tag was still on it.  Many people think a formally dressed
male standing in a hotel lobby is an employee, i.e. bellman.   Lots of people
in hotels don't get out much either, or they'd know that bellmen wear uniforms.

Of course, well dressed women in hotel lobbies are rarely confused with
bellmen.

tim

    Well, personally, I've never mistaken a well-dressed business man
    for a bellhop.  
    
    Usually, bellhops do wear uniforms (as you mentioned) so that people
    can find them in a crowded lobby.
    
    Other peoples' mileage may vary.
    

    .531 So the whole this was a trick question to hook us all down another
    rat hole?:)
    
    >Belhops don't wear $2000 suits.
    
    Dead men don't wear plaid either.:)
    
    

    .535
    
    So the end result of this is that someone made a mistake and now some
    ulterior motive is being applied to it.  as has been shown this happens
    to other folks, including white males, and no subversive element is
    applied to it.
    
    Perhaps the fact that this individual, and yourself, see something more
    in this is indicative of the personal agenda being carried, than a
    societal problem.
    
    Thank you again for clearly showing that personal prejudices color your
    view of things.
    
    So much for negotiations and equality from the aggrieved sector.
    

    re .535
    
>    Usually, bellhops do wear uniforms (as you mentioned) so that people
>    can find them in a crowded lobby.
    
    The bell captain, however, will usually be wearing a suit, and a 
    fairly "upscale" suit at that since  he is supposed to be a "manager"
    type for an upscale operation.  I can see how it would  be easy to
    mistake a well dressed man just standing and looking  around a hotel
    lobby looking  like he wasn't really doing anything at the moment as
    the bell captain, and the bell captain is who I'd be looking for to
    get someone to carry my bags. 
    
    fred();

    Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree.

    It's interesting, though.  I asked an extremely conservative white
    male friend of mine some questions this morning (without explaining
    about this discussion at first), and here's what he said:

    	SC:	Do you think you'd have a problem distinguishing a
    		well-dressed business man or college professor from
    		a bellhop in a hotel lobby?

    	HIM:	Not at all.  The bellhops wear uniforms and they're
    		usually garish colors.  They wear them to try to
    		stand out.

    	SC:	Would you be surprised to hear that a very well-dressed 
    		African-American college professor is often mistaken
    		for a bellhop when he stands around in a hotel lobby?

    	HIM:	People are bozos.  Do you mean that they walk right by
    		three kids in maroon jackets (or something) and go to
    		the adult in the expensive suit as if he's a bellhop?

    	SC:	Yes.

    	HIM:	People are bozos.

    Then I told him about this discussion and that people here were
    arguing that well-dressed business men can easily be mistaken for
    bellhops (regardless of the business men's race), and he just
    shook his head and smiled.

    Meanwhile, I guess we will still have to agree to disagree on this one.
    

    
    re 539
    
    >	SC:	Would you be surprised to hear that a very well-dressed 
>    		African-American college professor is often mistaken
>    		for a bellhop when he stands around in a hotel lobby?
    
    
    This is an example of how a "survey" can be slanted by the question
    asked.  You specificlly limited your survey question to 
    "African-American".
    
    And you're right.  Like so many other issues, we are probably going
    to have to agree to disagree.
    
    fred();

White Men Shake Off Anger Toward Affirmative Action

  By Jonathan Kaufman
  Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

  Tom Shugrue worried he wouldn't get a promotion 15 months ago because he is a
white man. That made him angry.

  He got the job -- he is a junior vice president at Travelers Insurance Cos. in
Hartford, Conn. -- and he is content. His new boss is a woman, but white men
hold three of the other four jobs one level above him. Above that, the executive
suite at the Travelers Group Inc. unit is almost exclusively white and male,
suggesting to him that endeavor, not race and gender, is the best road to
advancement. "I think it's a level playing field," Mr. Shugrue has concluded.

  Just a few years ago, white men like Mr. Shugrue complained bitterly to
themselves and to pollsters that competition from women and minorities was
imperiling their career climb and job security. Opposition to affirmative action
among white men surged to 67% in 1995 from 44% in 1991, according to a Wall
Street Journal/NBC poll.

  But now that anger has cooled a bit. According to the same poll conducted this
year, opposition to affirmative action among white men has dropped to 52%.

  The reason: The tide is turning their way. "The Supreme Court is going their
way, the dire projections about an invasion of nonwhite males into the workplace
have not materialized, and there has been no landing of strange people to take
their jobs," says Harris Sussman, a Cambridge, Mass., diversity consultant.
"White men can catch their breath again."

  That has certainly been the case at Deloitte & Touche, the accounting firm
based in Wilton, Conn. Four years ago the firm announced a series of measures
designed to increase the number of women partners. The program increased the
percentage of women partners -- to 8.4% from 5%. The concern some men expressed
initially has largely passed. As David Almond, a Deloitte partner notes, men got
about 80% of the new partner positions last year.

  Many would argue that the fears of white men were exaggerated to begin with.
In 1995, as complaints of angry white men filled the media, the Federal Glass
Ceiling Commission reported that 95% of the senior managers at Fortune 1000
companies were men, and 97% of those men were white.

  But overall, white men have been losing ground in their hold on management
jobs at corporations. Between 1982 and 1994, the last year for which figures are
available, the percentage of white officials and managers in companies with more
than 100 employees fell to 61% from 73%, according to federal employment
figures.

  What has changed recently is that the rise of women and minorities in some
companies has slowed or even halted. Companies are soft-pedaling or scaling back
diversity programs in response to white-male backlash. A changing political
climate, including recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the use of
affirmative action in education, is convincing many white men that the
high-water mark of affirmative action has passed.

  The upshot is that many white men are finding affirmative action less of an
obstacle to getting jobs and promotions than they expected. "Ninety-nine point
nine percent of the white men I send out get hired," says Marc Whitehead, an
Atlanta recruiter for major corporations. The percentage for minorities, says
Mr. Whitehead, is lower, in part because of lessened government pressure to meet
affirmative-action goals.

  To many white men this seems a return to fairness. But to many women and
minorities, it is a step backward that imperils the slim progress made in recent
decades. "White men will continue to get the lion's share of the benefits," says
Greg Jeffries, a black real-estate developer with Citylands Corp., a subsidiary
of Shorebank Corp. 

At AT&T Corp., an informal network of white men banded together several years
ago complaining that the company was treating white men badly. Now the group has
ceased being active. Even though the percentage of white-male managers has
continued to decline at AT&T, anger among white men has dwindled in part because
the company is no longer putting such a spotlight on diversity.

"It's really a nonissue," says John McNamara, a tax lawyer with the company.
"There doesn't seem to be the same emphasis on forcing people into diversity
training. A few years ago they required hours of diversity training. I don't see
a lot of that anymore." (An AT&T spokesman says the company now considers
diversity "part of its philosophical fabric" and that the "controversy and
emotionalism" about affirmative action among white men has dwindled as the
company has run workshops on white-male anxiety.)

Michael D'Ampolo is feeling better, too. The owner of a small Massachusetts bus
company, M & L Transportation, Mr. D'Ampolo considered making his wife president
of his company three years ago after being turned down for several federal-loan
programs and losing a bid for a corporate shuttle-bus route because, he says,
his business wasn't owned by a minority or a woman.

  Now, however, Mr. D'Ampolo has found some new loan programs and is preparing
to bid on a state project where he has been told the fact that he is white won't
hurt him. Whereas he once employed 15 black workers because he supported efforts
to overcome the past discrimination blacks encountered, he now employs just two.
"A lot of African-Americans don't want to work," he claims. "They're just there
because of affirmative action."

Indeed, whereas once many white-male executives and business owners shied away
from criticizing affirmative action for fear of bringing down government or
public sanctions, growing numbers are becoming more outspoken. "I'm a
49-year-old 5-foot-11 white guy and I can't jump," says Robert Salter, president
of Osmotek Inc., a small high-technology company in Corvallis, Ore. "Do you
think the Boston Celtics would give me an interview?"

Mr. Salter has chafed under affirmative-action guidelines for years. He credits
the makeup of his work force -- which he says is about 33% Hispanic
-- to good business sense. "If you think I would hire someone who is inferior
because I like his looks, you're crazy," he says. "I want talent. I don't care
about the gender, race or anything."

But at the same time, says Mr. Salter, "Should I spend $100,000 doing a search
for a Hispanic chemist when I know a [white] chemist who can do the job
perfectly?"

While not as outspoken as Mr. Salter or Mr. D'Ampolo, many companies have
changed their affirmative-action programs to accommodate white-male anxiety.
American Family Insurance, for example, began a diversity program in 1989 under
the shadow a federal lawsuit charging it with discrimination in selling
homeowner's insurance in Milwaukee. (It subsequently settled the suit for $16
million).

Dale Jackson, brought in to oversee the program, decided the company needed
diversity training -- essentially sensitivity sessions that encouraged employees
to talk about their differences and stereotypical views of others. The sessions,
held in hotels near several American Family offices, became heated. At one
session Mr. Jackson attended, women employees, enraged at their treatment over
the years, stormed out and threatened not to return. Most women and blacks liked
the opportunity the sessions gave to vent years of frustration. Most white men
hated them.

"It felt like the problems of the world were being caused by middle-aged white
men," says Joel Hervat, American Family's director of human resources, who is
white and attended the sessions. On evaluation forms that asked what
participants liked most about the new program, one white man scribbled,
"Nothing!"

As a result, Mr. Jackson and American Family switched to a less confrontational
approach in the encounter sessions. They broadened the definition of diversity
to include gays, people with disabilities, people of different ages. They
decided to focus on how affirmative action and diversity would help the
insurance business.

"It has become more than a black or white or gender issue," Mr. Jackson says.
"We've broadened it so that two white men can be totally different."

Overall, companies "are putting a lot of diversity programs on the back burner,"
says Estelle Holzer, a Chicago-area consultant. "With downsizing and the fact
that there are a lot of white males out of careers, white men are fighting back.
They don't want women and minorities taking their jobs."

  American Family has slowly increased the number of women in management to
38.9% from 36.3% in 1989 and minorities to 3.1% from 1.6%. But at other
companies downsizing has slowed or even reversed progress. At Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Massachusetts, for example, the percentage of women managers has now
dipped to 49.6% from 51.1% three years ago, following a corporatewide
downsizing. Minorities have fared better, increasing their share of management
jobs to 7.1% from 4.7% over the same period.

At Digital Equipment Corp., more than 70% of buyouts in some plants have been
taken by women and blacks, many of whom felt frustrated in their progress up the
corporate ladder, according to Mr. Sussman, the consultant, who used to work at
Digital. The company says that overall the number of women and minority
employees fell during downsizing, but the number of women and minority senior
managers increased.

Certainly, blacks feel the mood changing. "Years ago when I was interviewing for
jobs people were happy to see me -- somebody who was qualified and a minority,
who could help satisfy affirmative-action requirements," says David Phillips,
who was director of corporate finance for Stride Rite Corp. before taking a
recent buyout. "Now no one is aggressively doing it because they don't have to."

In the financial department at AlliedSignal Corp. in Morristown, N.J., Terrance
Osley has watched as a spate of his department's recent promotions have gone to
white men. "A lot of the older regime is about to retire and they are installing
younger white men into these positions," Mr. Osley says. "You have the passing
of the baton to younger white men." Officials for AlliedSignal declined comment.

Still, some white men remain enraged about affirmative action and believe it
continues to put them at disadvantage. "If you're white, you have to be 30%
better just to be even" with women and minorities, says an AT&T lawyer who was
laid off in January but was recently rehired in another department. He asked not
to be identified.

Other white men have come to accept that diversity, and competition for jobs, is
inevitable. Mr. Shugrue, the Travelers vice president says he now accepts that
"some of the people I will be competing against are women as well as men."

Yet even those who bristle at the rise of women and minorities say the impact is
less severe than they imagined. Two years ago Mark Underwager, a baggage handler
at UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, was angry after being demoted from a
supervisor's job, believing blacks were getting favored treatment. Recently, a
black supervisor was demoted as well. Two of three recent promotions have gone
to white men.

"Dow Jones News Service"
"Copyright(c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

    
>    Someone who is no longer with Digital showed me these studies.
>    
>    If you don't want to believe any of this, then don't.  The main
>    thing is that many women and minorities (and a growing number of
>    white males) *know* that this is happening in our society, and
>    the efforts to stop it aren't going to go away simply because
>    some others don't happen to believe it.
    
    I believe there is still bias however I probably disagree with you
    about the level of bias still around.  Why do I disagree, because
    virtually any data I see, looking at specific cohort groups (same age -
    same profession) shows women doing just about as well (pay, % of
    applicants accepted for jobs, %  applicants accepted for schools, % of
    candidates elected) as men.  
              
    It is troubling that there are less women chosing high paying
    professions and the numbers appear to have stabilized after getting a
    lot better in the 1975-1990 time frame.  However, I've never seen
    anything that indicates bias is why, for example, b-schools have got
    stuck in the 35%-40% women range; especially when in a time of much
    more bias the numbers shot up from around 5% to the levels of today.       
                                                      
    I will gladly read anything that refutes the facts as I understand them
    above.  Your reference to the study makes me curious as to the details
    of the study (how old is the study, what were the demographics of the
    managers they used, has the study been redone and what happened).
    Curious because this study runs counter to the outcome data I have seen
    and to the experiences of my classmates from college (based on average 
    outcomes).
    
    Greg
    
                 

    
    re .542

    The article is a bit of a double-edged sword in that although the
    article seems to attempt to paint "reverse discrimination" as the
    paranoia of "angry white men", it also gives credence that the issue 
    is/was(?) legitimate.

    fred();

    
    Suzanne's bellhop story through the eyes of a black American???

    I'm not black, I don't particularly look black, and I have never
    experienced being black so I'm merely guessing a lot of this.

    I think Suzanne's story about the bellhop may well be true and possibly
    mirrors why this is such a tough issue for both sides.  I will assume
    the story is true.

    If I were black and the story were true it would make me livid.  I
    would doubt similar things happened to my white friend nearly as often.  My
    black friends, almost to the person, tell stories of stuff like this (or
    treatment by cops) that are very unlike my experience as a white man. 
    It seems things like this occur on a regular basis through a black
    man's life. Events that, if it were me, would burn the bias in America
    into my brain.

    Bias absolutely still exists in America.  I hope much less than years
    gone by.  Lets say 5% of whites are still biased.  How many people went
    by the well dressed college professor when he was in the lobby? 
    Probably hundreds, but inevitably one of the morons (or even an innocent
    mistake) will pop up and show their bias.

    Blacks interact with tons of whites.  Enough that the morons show up on
    a frequent enough basis to keep that bias very visible.  Enough that
    95%+ (I hope) of whites treat black men with the respect (and equality)
    they deserve!  

    My guess is that black men simultaneously experience a pretty much
    continuous stream of events based on bias and an ever increasing degree
    of respect from the vast majority of whites.  IMO, when I hear the
    voices of minorities I am often hearing their reaction the biased few and
    when I hear the voices of white males I'm often hearing the voices of the
    vast majority who do try to be as fair and respectful as they can be.
    
    Greg
     
     
                                                    

    With respect to Suzanne's, albiet anecdotal, relating of the
    Afro-American's experience I can by personal reality relate to the
    scenario. It isn't important how the guy was dressed (I have been to
    restaurants where the Maitre D' was more expensively and elegantly
    attired than the wealthiest of guests). I believe that it is the
    principle, the point, the gist of Suzanne's story which is of most
    importannce,i.e, Suzanne was, pardon me if I am wrong here Suzanne,
    illuminating how old precepts and conditioning die hard. To be blunt,
    the professor had been mistaken for a porter because he is black. Yes
    we have all achieved a lot since 30 years ago but old precepts of
    conditioning in relation to race, gender, wealth, poverty,success,
    failure etc. still and probably will always exist. We are all to a
    great extent conditioned from childhood onward and each of us, if we
    are honest, hold some prejudice or prejudices at whoever or whatever,
    it is simply part of our conditioning. However, I believe that we all
    have the ability to temper our own personal prejudices by learning
    tolerance, obseving tolerance and practicing tolerance. The key, I
    believe, is to first of all deal with our resentments. When Suzanne
    wrote of putting away the guns , I saw it more as " Hey fellows, lay
    down those old worn out resentments, afterall, there really is no
    payoff at all". 
    Why not try getting rid all those tired worn out resentments, what have
    you got to lose ?

    
    .546

    There's a saying that goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
    mean they're not out to get you".  See .542.

    I viewed Suzanne's "put the guns down" as just another extension of
    the "extremist" propaganda.  Trying to paint everyone but herself
    as some sort of "gunslinger".

    fred();

    A movie is out right now by the name of "Trigger Effect" - we went
    to see it last weekend.

    I knew it was a movie about electricity going out in an a big area
    for a long time.  I was expecting a big terrorist plot or aliens
    or something (and widespread, major disaster) when I went to see
    the movie.

    What I really saw was a story about how people react to each other
    (when minor annoyances occur, or big problems occur) and how little
    we all seem to trust each other.

    It's easy to presume the *absolute worst* about every person you 
    happen to know (if they aren't already a good, trusted friend or 
    family member.)

    At some point, though, our survival may depend on having the ability
    to trust someone (such as a stranger or a person we already think 
    we hate.)

    On the other hand, if every time you try to reach out to a kitten
    it tries to scratch your eyes out, it does make you a bit cautions
    after a while.
    
    fred();

    .546
    
    I agree with most of what you srote.  the point of departure is when
    you talk about the "put down the guns" phrase.
    
    It has been pointed out regularly that unilateral disarmament is a sure
    way to end up on the wrong end of the stick.  that is what is being
    requested.  Numerous entries and statments have been made that are
    absolutely unsupported, but stated as fact nonetheless.  When facts are
    requested, the request is ignored.
    
    The only way progress is going to be made is that biases and prejudices
    on both sides need to be recognized and eliminated.  Making a claim
    that discrimination is rampant and drastic measures need to be taken to
    eliminate this, or that someone is going to face discrimination in the
    future, and no reasonable information is provided to support the claim,
    then the point is just noise.
    
    To claim that some hypothetical person somewhere at some time, may be
    biased and that supports a general condemnation, then I personally take
    offense at that kind of debating technique.  It is without merit and is
    intellectually dishonest.
    
    I do not believe I have any biases or prejudices.  I have hired,
    reviewed and promoted people based on qualifiactions and merit.  I
    never made a decision based on anything else.  I have raised my
    children to aspire to whatever levels or professions they so chose.  I
    have never tried to direct them to specific careers based on gender.
    
    To have someone, without any knowledge but with an agenda, make totally
    invalid statements leaves the claimant without credibility.
    

    
    Maybe one of the first things that needs to be done is to recognized
    that being a "white male" is not proof of nor a prerequisite for being 
    a sexist, racist, or bigot.

    fred();

    
    No one ever said it was.