Conference quark::mennotes

    
    or 
    
    take your daughter to work day *and* take your son to work day
     

Either "Take your child to work day" 

or 

"Career day" - on which day you bring any guest.

Art

    Take the kids to work! We are not sexist.

    
    
    For sure it should be  -take your kids to work-  Anything else is
    sexist.  Someday those who promote  -take your daughters to work day-
    will catch on.                Bill  

  Yes, someday, when the workforce actually is gender-balanced ALL THE
  WAY TO THE TOP, I'm sure they will "catch on" (as you so biasedly
  put it). Until then, I'd say that there's no problem.

  (Someone remind me again just how many women head Fortune-500 companies
  at this time?)
                                   Atlant

  
    
    >> Yes, someday, when the workforce actually is gender-balanced ALL THE
    >> WAY TO THE TOP, I'm sure they will "catch on" (as you so biasedly
    >> put it). Until then, I'd say that there's no problem.
    
    When do you think that's going to happen?  
    
    angela
    
    

    
    	I love it, the two wrongs make a right strategy.

> I love it, the two wrongs make a right strategy.

  No, it's the "compensate for an on-going wrong" strategy.
  Not unlike how one turns the car's steering wheel to the
  left when one is headed for the curb�. I'm not aware of
  *ANYONE* who has succesfully steered back to the middle
  course by "holding to a straight course, balanced between
  turning to the left or turning to the right". Right now,
  that's what a "take our children" to work day would represent,
  that middle course that continues crashing into the curb.

  (And, of course, no one is stopping *YOU* from organizing
  a "take our sons" to work day. But don't expect the women
  to organize it for you. They've already done plenty for
  your sons.)

  And Angela, I haven't a clue. Not so long as folks hold the
  extremely misogynistic views we see expressed here every day.

                                   Atlant


� If you spell that word "kerb", you probably should substitute
  "right" for "left" in my example. :-)

    >                     -< (Someone answer my CEO question?) >-
    
    If I remember right, the number is 2.
    
    
    >  No, it's the "compensate for an on-going wrong" strategy.
    
    Actually it's called get-even-with-'em-ism, or "lets punish somebody
    for something somebody else did".
    
    fred();
    

>    Would you prefer to see Digital promoting, a 'take your daughter to work
>    day' or a 'take your kids to work day'? 
    
    Neither, if I'll hear 'em from my cube.

    Atlant is right - we leave 'take our daughters to work day' alone 
    and let anyone who wants to do it arrange a 'take our sons to work
    day'.

    That's totally fair and non-sexist.

    The sons aren't being punished when the daughters have their day,
    and the daughters aren't being punished when the sons have their
    day.  Everyone gets a chance.

> I love it, the two wrongs make a right strategy.

  No, it's the "compensate for an on-going wrong" strategy.
  Not unlike how one turns the car's steering wheel to the
  left when one is headed for the curb�. I'm not aware of
  *ANYONE* who has succesfully steered back to the middle
  course by "holding to a straight course, balanced between
  turning to the left or turning to the right". Right now,
  that's what a "take our children" to work day would represent,
  that middle course that continues crashing into the curb.

Sorry, Atlant, I disagree.  I think we were heading towards the kerb a few
decades ago, but we're now heading away from it.  Discrimination against women
is less than it was twenty years ago, wouldn't you agree?

So, we're already heading away from the kerb, and you're wanting to turn the
wheel further to the...left.  If I can get my mind round the fact that you 
folk drive on the other side of the road, I do believe that what you are
advocating is likely to put your car straight into the path of an oncoming
truck.

I for one am against sexual apartheid.  Children to work, fine.  Daughters
to work seems to me to be dangerously sexist nonsense.

regards,
//alan

    If 'daughters at work' is allowed and 'sons at work' is allowed,
    where is the danger?  Who is being harmed?

    Do you really see it as deathly that a day is set aside to encourage
    young girls in particular (when it's also allowed to set aside a day
    to encourage young boys)?

    
    I thoght the Supreme Court ruled that "seperate but equal" was not
    really equal.  
    
    fred();

    The supreme court didn't rule that women and men had to be together
    in ALL situations, though, or it would be illegal to have separate
    women's and men's restrooms.
    

    
>    The supreme court didn't rule that women and men had to be together
>    in ALL situations, though, 
    
    Only when it fits the agenda, huh?
    
    fred();

    The Supreme Court hasn't ruled about women and men being together
    at all, actually.  

    They ruled that African American school children shouldn't be forced 
    to spend 12 years in a school system that was not as good as the schools
    that white children spent 12 years attending.

    They said nothing about what could happen to African American children
    or white children on ONE given day per year, nor have they said anything
    about the situations where women and men must be together.

    If girls and boys go to the SAME workplaces on their given days,
    then their experiences are equivalent.  They simply aren't together
    (in the same way that they may not be together for summer camp.)

    
>    The Supreme Court hasn't ruled about women and men being together
>    at all, actually.  

    Then where did all this "equal rights" stuff come from?  The precedent
    used to argue for "Equal" (gender) Rights" was indeed Brown vs. 
    Board-of-Education.

    Again, it seems, you are doing exactly what I am arguing even while 
    trying to deny that you are doing it.   (That "equal rights" only applies 
    when it suits your purpose).

    fred();

    

    It doesn't violate equal rights to have a day to encourage young girls
    and a day to encourage young boys at the SAME PLACES but on different
    days.  

    The principal behind the Brown vs. Board-of-Education was that the
    school systems were NOT equal (in fact, they were nowhere close.)
    The division of schools based on race alone had a daily impact on
    African American school children for 12 years.

    Setting aside equivalent days for girls and boys to visit the same
    places doesn't fit into this scenario in any way, shape or form.
    
    It's no more discriminatory to set aside particular days in the SAME
    PLACES for girls and boys than it is discriminatory to celebrate
    St. Patrick's day and Columbus day at the same places but on different
    days.

    If the experience of the girls and boys could be described as substantially
    unequal (as in, the boys were sent to fast food joints while the girls
    met CEOs), then you might have a case.

    The boys and girls would be free to go to the same places, though,
    so it's just a matter of doing it on different days.

    There is no case at all for discrimination.

    Also, rulings about Equal Rights are based on the harm done to those
    who are excluded from some particular process or institution (such as 
    a school system.)

    If you wanted this situation under discussion to apply, you'd have
    to prove that boys were harmed by having the same experiences as the
    girls but on a different day.

    No such harm is evident.

    What would be the harm done to boys if they went to a 'take our sons
    to work day' held on a different day than the 'take our daughters to
    work day'?

    And it better be solid and verifiable.

    re .19

    >The principal behind the Brown vs. Board-of-Education was that the
    >    school systems were NOT equal (in fact, they were nowhere close.)

    The principal behind Brown vs. Board-of-Education was that even if
    the are equal physically, just because they are separate someone will
    be pointing to one or the other as inferior.

    Having a "girls only" day is actually demeaning to the girls.  Giving
    the message that they _cannot_ compete on their own merits unless they
    are give special considerations.

    My daughter has somehow gotten convinced on this one--"I just can't
    (sob) do it".   Yet when the proper motivation is applied--like you
    don't go to camp this summer because you'll be in summer school--
    she does seem to be very well indeed be able to do it.  She's also
    the best athlete of the bunch.
    
    Actually I'm probably the biggest feminist in the group when treating
    my sons and daughters equally.
    
    fred();

    If it'll make you feel any better, let the boys have their day first
    each year.

    Then let the girls have their day.

    Absolutely fair and equal.  Everyone experiences the same thing, and
    everyone goes through the same experience of being excluded on the
    day set aside for the other gender.

    What could be more fair?

    RE: .22  Fred

    > The principal behind Brown vs. Board-of-Education was that even if
    > the are equal physically, just because they are separate someone will
    > be pointing to one or the other as inferior.

    Why doesn't it surprise me to hear you take such a cynical attitude
    about one of the biggest corrections of an injustice in American
    history (second only to the end of slavery in this country.)

    The school systems were nowhere close to being equal.  African American
    children were excluded from getting a better education based on race
    alone.

    > Having a "girls only" day is actually demeaning to the girls. Giving
    > the message that they _cannot_ compete on their own merits unless they
    > are give special considerations.

    No one is forcing these girls to go to their parents' places of employment.
    And I guarantee you that most parents do not tell their daughters the
    sorts of things you say about women here.

    Daughters go to work with their parents as a treat.  If their parents
    made them feel bad about the experience, they wouldn't want to go.

    > Actually I'm probably the biggest feminist in the group when treating
    > my sons and daughters equally.

    I'm surprised that lightening didn't strike you when you wrote that. :>

    What is the harm done to boys if they experience the same things on
    a different day of the year?

    Would it be demeaning to them to have them go on a day without girls?

    Is it demeaning to children in general to take them to work at all
    (does it show that adults don't believe children can compete in the
    world without special consideration?)

        re .24

>    Why doesn't it surprise me to hear you take such a cynical attitude
>    about one of the biggest corrections of an injustice in American
>    history (second only to the end of slavery in this country.)

    If you've ever read the Brown vs. Board-of-Education ruling you would
    know that what I said was indeed the ruling and the justification that
    "seperate but equal is not equal".

>    No one is forcing these girls to go to their parents' places of employment.
>    And I guarantee you that most parents do not tell their daughters the
>    sorts of things you say about women here.

    The message is given none-the-less, whether overtly or covertly that
    they must have special treatment in order to compete.

    >    I'm surprised that lightening didn't strike you when you wrote that. :>

    My oldest daughter was the first female on her mother's side that
    anyone could remember graduating from high school.  She is now a
    junior in college.  My younger daughter will be the second.  My biggest 
    problem with both girls has been convincing them that they d**n well 
    _can_ do it, because they've both tried to use the "I'm just a girl"
    excuse on me (among others).   And I'll be a grandpa next summer ;^) 
    (yes the older daughter is married).

    fred();

    RE: .26  Fred

    > If you've ever read the Brown vs. Board-of-Education ruling you would
    > know that what I said was indeed the ruling and the justification that
    > "seperate but equal is not equal".

    The complaint in Brown vs. Board of Education was not "just because
    they are separate someone will be pointing to one or the other as
    inferior."  They had a very legitimate complaint about a horrid
    injustice (second only to slavery.)

    > The message is given none-the-less, whether overtly or covertly that
    > they must have special treatment in order to compete.

    The message comes from their parents.  If you don't trust parents
    to give their daughters positive messages, it's a shame.  These
    parents should be allowed the opportunity to give their daughters
    such positive messages anyway.

    > My oldest daughter was the first female on her mother's side that
    > anyone could remember graduating from high school.  She is now a
    > junior in college.  My younger daughter will be the second.  My
    > biggest problem with both girls has been convincing them that they 
    > d**n well _can_ do it, because they've both tried to use the "I'm 
    > just a girl" excuse on me (among others).   

    It really makes a difference how kids are raised.  My sister and I were
    told from early, early childhood that we needed to get educations so
    that we could support ourselves (and it was a given that we could do it.)
    Always.  The question of not being 'able' to do it never came up at all 
    for either one of us.  As it happens, we BOTH ended up with two bachelors
    degrees (the second ones done some years after the first), and I'm working
    on my Masters degree.

    Our parents gave us the right messages from square one (with no fix-up
    work needed later.)

    > And I'll be a grandpa next summer ;^)

    Congratulations!!!  That's wonderful!

    
>    Our parents gave us the right messages from square one (with no fix-up
>    work needed later.)
    
    Unfortunately my kids got some really s****y messages from their
    _mother_ before I was able to get custody.  It's been an uphill battle 
    since.  It's hard for us who _wanted_ to succeed to understand that
    there are those (a _lot_) who are just looking for _any_ excuse.
    fred(hardass-daddy :^));
    

    Fred, your first wife was a high school dropout - it sounds like she
    wasn't really equipped to encourage the kids to go to college.

    It makes a difference to have parents who encourage their children
    to succeed.  Parents have different ways of doing this (and sometimes
    the same parents can work wonders on some of their kids while another
    of their children just doesn't make it.)  It happens all the time.

    
    >    Fred, your first wife was a high school dropout - it sounds like she
    >    wasn't really equipped to encourage the kids to go to college.
    
    It wasn't just school, it's the whold bloody business about you don't
    need to succeed, you just need a good excuse.
    
>    It makes a difference to have parents who encourage their children
>    to succeed.  Parents have different ways of doing this (and sometimes
>    the same parents can work wonders on some of their kids while another
>    of their children just doesn't make it.)  It happens all the time.
    
    How well I know.  Some day when I know you better, I'll tell you about
    my oldest son :^]. 
    
    fred();

    RE: .30  Fred

    > It wasn't just school, it's the whold bloody business about you don't
    > need to succeed, you just need a good excuse.

    My Mom was just the opposite.  She was a detail-oriented person who
    never procrastinated or delayed a single thing in her entire life.

    If she saw one of her children just 'sitting' without doing anything
    (except watching tv or something), she'd give us something to do.
    (A chore, usually.)  She almost never stopped moving and doing things
    herself.

    All her kids ended up with multiple college degrees, though (a total
    of 5 bachelors degrees, 1 masters degree, 1 PhD and another masters
    degree on the way among her three children.)

    It just depends on the person, though, and how this person was raised.

    
    Which brings us back to the situation of School A and School B.  The
    bigger problem may not be those in School A that point to school B as
    inferior, it's those in School B who believe they cannot succeed
    because they are in School B. And those who give the ones in School B
    the message that they cannot succeded because they are in school B. 
    (Even if, in fact, both schools are equal).  Just as many _men_ have
    bought into the message that men are not necessary in families.  Just
    as many men believe that there is no point in fighting for custody.

    After 9 1/2 years in the "family" courts, if anyone knows and 
    understands what discrimination is like, feels like, tastes like, it's
    me.  I could have come up with 47 different reasons why I could never
    succeed.  Just as I was told that I could not succeed.  Just as there 
    are also those from school B that _do_ succeed.

    fred();

    Surely you aren't questioning the decision in Brown vs. Board of 
    Education, though.

    It was a horrible injustice and the right thing to do to correct it.

    
    >  Surely you aren't questioning the decision in Brown vs. Board of
    >    Education, though.
     
    I thought I was the one arguing that Brown vs. Board-of-education
    was the correct decision,  and should be applied to "bring our xxxx's
    to work".  That, simply because they are separate, that intellectually
    as well as in sports, they will be considered by many _girls_ as well 
    as others to be unequal and inferior.
    
    fred();

    Well, I'm glad you're not questioning Brown vs. Board of Education.
    I still say that this decision corrected a horrid injustice (second 
    only to slavery.)

    It doesn't apply to a situation where girls and boys do the SAME EXACT
    THINGS (in the SAME EXACT PLACES) once per year each, but on different
    days.

    The day for girls is not considered necessarily inferior to a day for
    boys, nor is a day for boys considered necessarily inferior to a day
    for girls.  They just happen on different days, that's all.

    If you believe that boys are being harmed by going on a different day
    from girls (or vice versa), you have to prove the harm.

    It isn't enough to claim that the parents are giving these children
    the wrong messages about this day.  This can't be proven.

    
    
    We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
    
    fred();

    
    Sounds good to me.
    
    Suzanne

Suzanne,

Going back to the base question, what _benefit_ is there in segregating
boys and girls in "take your brats to school day"?

I cannot understand why sexual discrimination - in _any_ form - is a desirable
thing

regards,
//alan

    In a society so full of messages to boy children that they'll be 
    working their whole lives through, emphasizing the workplace to 
    female children - one day a year - seems to me to be a far less
    egregious example of sexual discrimination than that whole load
    of societal messages the boys get.
    
    The whining about it is because it makes a convenient target, not
    because girls don't need to know about the workplace, or because
    telling the girls about work is unfair to boys.
    
    > I cannot understand why sexual discrimination - in _any_ form - is a
    > desirable thing
    
    I cannot understand why you're not out on the rooftops campaigning
    about the real state of unequal messages in our society, rather than
    attacking one harmless day of female-oriented education - if you
    *really* care about sexual discrimination.
    
    DougO

    Alan, you can't just call something 'sexual discrimination' arbitrarily
    because girls and boys can go to a special day at work once per year
    but on different days.

    You have to back it up with an argument about the harm done to those
    who would be excluded.  

    In this case, no one is necessarily excluded and no one is harmed by
    this.  Girls and boys can go to the same places to do the same things 
    - they just don't go there at the same time.

    The benefit is the encouragement to young children.  We can never have
    too much of that - agreed?

    Alan, you can't just call something 'sexual discrimination' arbitrarily
    because girls and boys can go to a special day at work once per year
    but on different days.

Suzanne,

I call _any_ discrimination between people on the grounds of sex "sexual
discrimination".  Some discrimination may be justifiable - for example
changing rooms at swimming pools and so forth - but differentiation between
people on the grounds of their sex is sexual discrimination.

Now, as for re-inforcement of views as to who will work and so on, I don't
accept what is said that men are the ones who have a message that 'they will
work' blasted at them and women don't.  Maybe things are different across the
pond, but here in the UK there is a very strong message going out across the
media that if a woman doesn't go out to work, and get back to work as soon as
she has recovered from childbirth, she is somehow letting...somebody...down.

There was a survey published recently by some group like "Women in Business in
Europe" (can't remembre their exact title, but that was the general thrust).
In this survey, it was trumpeted that on current trends, in ten years or so
women would make up well over 50% of the work force, and the really
interesting figure was that something like 53% of women would be earning more
than their partners.

My wife already earns more than I do - hey, we're trendsetters!

regards,
//alan

    RE: .41  Alan

    > I call _any_ discrimination between people on the grounds of sex "sexual
    > discrimination".  Some discrimination may be justifiable - for example
    > changing rooms at swimming pools and so forth - but differentiation 
    > between people on the grounds of their sex is sexual discrimination.

    Then, you'd define it as 'sexual discrimination' to have men's bathrooms
    *and* women's bathrooms in a public building.

    Fine.  If you really feel that something like this (or like having
    girls and boys do the same things at the same places on different
    days each year) is sexual discrimination, I guess you're free to
    define things for yourself however you choose.  

    It may also seem like sexual discrimination to you that shoe
    manufacturers don't make high heels for men (like the ones they
    make for women.)  Or that they don't make dresses for men.

    Lots of things could fit your definition when you make it this loose.

    I'm sure you aren't out campaigning to stop the practice of making
    men's and women's bathrooms separate in public places (or swimming
    pool changing rooms either.)

    For similar reasons, there's no need to stop the practice of allowing
    girls and boys to have special days of encouragement on different days.

    Remember - we're talking about children here.  Why on earth would you
    want to stop encouraging them (even if you don't care for the idea of
    having girls and boys encouraged on different days)?

    Children go to this special day with their PARENTS.  Everyone is able
    to get a chance.  It simply doesn't fit in with the normal definition
    for sexual discrimination (where some group is harmed by being 
    systematically excluded from certain opportunities.)

    Again, you can have your own special definitions for everything,
    if you'd like.  In this case, it doesn't fit the legal notion of
    discrimination, and you have no grounds to make it fit.

    > I call _any_ discrimination between people on the grounds of sex "sexual
    > discrimination".  Some discrimination may be justifiable - for example
    > changing rooms at swimming pools and so forth - but differentiation 
    > between people on the grounds of their sex is sexual discrimination.

    Then, you'd define it as 'sexual discrimination' to have men's bathrooms
    *and* women's bathrooms in a public building.

Yep, of course it is.  However, in most people's eyes, it's probably a
reasonable form of discrimination.  For myself, that's one about which I
couldn't care less.

    It may also seem like sexual discrimination to you that shoe
    manufacturers don't make high heels for men (like the ones they
    make for women.)  Or that they don't make dresses for men.

I do rather object to the vastly greater freedom that women have in choosing
clothing than men have.  But I think it's men who are entirely to blame - any
attempt by a man to wear something unconventional is usually looked on with
great suspicion by other men.

Individuality in women is something that society encourages, individuality in
men is something that society tends to look on as some kind of perversion.

    Lots of things could fit your definition when you make it this loose.

    I'm sure you aren't out campaigning to stop the practice of making
    men's and women's bathrooms separate in public places (or swimming
    pool changing rooms either.)

Once again, I couldn't care less.  After stumbling across a naturist beach
when on holiday in the Canaries, I began to realise just how screwed up about
people seeing our bodies we tend to be.

    For similar reasons, there's no need to stop the practice of allowing
    girls and boys to have special days of encouragement on different days.

    Remember - we're talking about children here.  Why on earth would you
    want to stop encouraging them (even if you don't care for the idea of
    having girls and boys encouraged on different days)?

I have no wish whatsoever to stop encouraging them.  I just cannot see any
benefit in segregating the event.  I live in an area where schools are
separated into Catholic and Protestant schools.  The level of religious hatred
isn't quite as high as in Northern Ireland, but there are still lots of people
who end up with glasses smashed in their faces because they went into the
wrong religion of pub.

I loathe any form of segregation of people.  I see what it does - and I resent
it so.  I want to see people as simply that - I don't want to care about
someone's race, sex, or any other means of putting them into groups.  I just
want to know the _individual_.

That's why I don't want to see any form of differentiation between people
based on anything other than that person's ability.  

    Again, you can have your own special definitions for everything,
    if you'd like.  In this case, it doesn't fit the legal notion of
    discrimination, and you have no grounds to make it fit.

I'm not familiar with your legal system's definition, or with any
politically-charged terms.  I just go by the English language.  Look at
webster's on-line dictionary:

$ webster sexual
Connecting to Xwebster server at 16.1.16.1
The meaning of the word is:
DEFINITION 0
sex.u.al \'seksh-(*-)w*l, 'sek-sh*l\ \'seksh-(*-)w*-le-, 'seksh-(*-)le-\ aj
   [LL sexualis, fr. L sexus sex] 1: of, relating to, or associated with sex
   or the sexes {~ differentiation ~ conflict} 2: having or involving sex {~
   reproduction ~ spores} - sex.u.al.ly av

$ webster discrimination
Connecting to Xwebster server at 16.1.16.1
The meaning of the word is:
DEFINITION 1
1 discernment
dis.crim.i.na.tion \dis-.krim-*-'na--sh*n\ \-shn*l, -sh*n-*l\ n 1: the act
   of discriminating : DIFFERENTIATION 2: the quality or power of finely
   distinguishing 3: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating
   categorically rather than individually - dis.crim.i.na.tion.al aj

I see nothing in there that refutes my use of the term.  However, if you
prefer I'll use the term segregation instead of discrimination.

regards,
//alan

    re allen

    I think that what we are observing here is one of the major problems
    that I've long had with the "equal rights" crowd.   They are
    absolutely, totally, unequivocally opposed to _any_ discrimination---
    unless the discrimination benefits _them_.

    However, as I have said, my main problem is that I am in total
    disagreement that this particular discrimination is a benefit to
    the people that it is supposed to help.  You have to take into
    account the REAL NET AFFECT rather than the INTENT.  Just because
    something is intended to be good doesn't necessarily make it so.
    Seems that there is an old saying about he road to Hell being
    paved with good intentions.

    fred();

>                      <<< Note 260.40 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
>
>    Alan, you can't just call something 'sexual discrimination' arbitrarily
>    because girls and boys can go to a special day at work once per year
>    but on different days.
    
    Has this actually ever happened, or are you just hypothesizing that
    it could?
    
    I recall the original "take your daughters to work" day, and the
    subsequent year (s?) of "take your * to work" arguments, but I have
    NEVER seen a separate "take your sons to work" day, so unless and
    until someone _organizes_ one, I don't think you can cite it in an
    argument as evidence of equal treatment.
    
    That said, I would _not_ like to see separate days for boys and
    girls. One day a year with the office crawling with kids is 'way
    more than enough, thank you very much. I think it's not unreasonable
    to leave it as TYDTW day, since before that was organizing, no one
    was clamoring to bring their boys to work. Major envy reaction for
    no good reason. Leave the thing as a voluntary "event" (as such, it
    wouldn't fall under any antidiscrimination laws anyway), and if
    anyone decides to take the opportunity to bring their sons to work
    that day, nobody's gonna shoot 'em.

>                      <<< Note 260.40 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
>
>    Alan, you can't just call something 'sexual discrimination' arbitrarily
>    because girls and boys can go to a special day at work once per year
>    but on different days.
    
    Has this actually ever happened, or are you just hypothesizing that
    it could?
    
    I recall the original "take your daughters to work" day, and the
    subsequent year (s?) of "take your * to work" arguments, but I have
    NEVER seen a separate "take your sons to work" day, so unless and
    until someone _organizes_ one, I don't think you can cite it in an
    argument as evidence of equal treatment.
    
    That said, I would _not_ like to see separate days for boys and
    girls. One day a year with the office crawling with kids is 'way
    more than enough, thank you very much. I think it's not unreasonable
    to leave it as TYDTW day, since before that was organized, no one
    was clamoring to bring their boys to work. Major envy reaction for
    no good reason. Leave the thing as a voluntary "event" (as such, it
    wouldn't fall under any antidiscrimination laws anyway), and if
    anyone decides to take the opportunity to bring their sons to work
    that day, nobody's gonna shoot 'em.

Fred,

I think I partly agree with you.  A subject area so ill-defined as 'feminism'
can be used by many special interest groups, not all of whom are interested
in true equality.  And even of those, not all are competent.

As you say, the best thing to do is to try to understand the real effect of
changes, for every person to make his or her own analysis of the benefit that
any approach will achieve

regards,
//alan

> Suzanne,
> 
> Going back to the base question, what _benefit_ is there in segregating
> boys and girls in "take your brats to school day"?
>
> I cannot understand why sexual discrimination - in _any_ form - is a 
> desirable thing

I'm not Suzanne but I'll answer that one.  I have no problem with NOW 
promoting TYDaughterTWD; after all NOW is an advocacy group.  I have a big 
problem with Digital having only a TYDaughterTWD;  I want my company to 
provide such exposure equally.  Personally I'm OK with either one day for 
all kids or one day for girls and one day for boys.  I've read enough stuff 
that shows girls in mix groups get less attention and ask less questions 
that if it were up to me there would be two days.  The real kicker is that 
girls that spend time in all-girl situations, especially in the 10-20 ages, 
do better in mixed situations as adults.

Take care,
Greg

PS - To me the down side of two days is the time commitment by Digital.
 

    RE: .44  Fred

    > I think that what we are observing here is one of the major problems
    > that I've long had with the "equal rights" crowd.   They are
    > absolutely, totally, unequivocally opposed to _any_ discrimination---
    > unless the discrimination benefits _them_.

    This makes no sense at all, of course, because feminists in general
    are adults and there is no possible way that we can be 'taken to work'
    by our parents as child daughters.  It has no benefit to us AT ALL.

    It's about encouraging children, no more no less.

    > However, as I have said, my main problem is that I am in total
    > disagreement that this particular discrimination is a benefit to
    > the people that it is supposed to help.  You have to take into
    > account the REAL NET AFFECT rather than the INTENT.  Just because
    > something is intended to be good doesn't necessarily make it so.
    > Seems that there is an old saying about he road to Hell being
    > paved with good intentions.

    The children enjoy it and the parents who bring them to work seem
    to think it will help THEIR (not your) children.

    It's their call as parents, not yours.  If they think their children
    are getting positive messages, you're interfering with their parenting
    to insist that they're NOT (and to try to stop them from having this
    opportunity.)

    People complain SOOOOO MUCH about the women who can't support
    themselves adequately, yet they complain WORSE when people try
    to encourage little girls to see the opportunities waiting for
    them in the work force.

    They want us to solve the problem, but not if it means making
    any positive steps towards young girls in any way.

    re .49

>    They want us to solve the problem, but not if it means making
>    any positive steps towards young girls in any way.

    And then there's those who just can't seem to grasp the concept that
    intent doesn't necessarily equal results.

    And there's those who believe we should teach girls that they darn
    well _are_ equal in ability and don't need special coddling to 
    prove it.

    fred();

    .49 Sooo far from the line of truth. My how we twist the consept
    in that for the name of equality.

    RE: .50  Fred

    >> They want us to solve the problem, but not if it means making
    >> any positive steps towards young girls in any way.

    > And then there's those who just can't seem to grasp the concept
    > that intent doesn't necessarily equal results.

    What do you have against PARENTS making the call about their own
    children (not yours) when it comes to deciding what will work?

    > And there's those who believe we should teach girls that they darn
    > well _are_ equal in ability and don't need special coddling to 
    > prove it.

    Some people don't just YELL at their kids to teach them things.

    Besides, it isn't special 'coddling' to pay attention to girls and
    boys on different days.  Nor is it illegal discrimination.

    
    
    Suzanne,   I've told you how my methods have worked for my daughters
    (starting from a huge deficite) would you be so kind as to tell us 
    how your methods have worked for your daughter(s)?
    
    fred();

    Fred, I've BEEN a daughter (along with my sister) - would be so kind
    as to relate your experiences as a daughter?

    Our parents were more successful with us than you've been with your
    daughters so far.

    Neither you nor my parents can tell other parents what will or will NOT
    work with their children, though.
    
    It's those parents' business (not yours) to decide what will help their
    children.
    

    re .52
    
    >    Some people don't just YELL at their kids to teach them things.
    
    And you you mind explaining this statement and your justification
    for it?
    
    fred()

    

>    Neither you nor my parents can tell other parents what will or will NOT
>    work with their children, though.
    
    But Suzanne Conlon can?
    
    fred();

    RE: .57  Fred Haddock
    
    >> Neither you nor my parents can tell other parents what will or
    >> will NOT work with their children, though.
        
    > But Suzanne Conlon can?
    
    I'm not forcing anyone to take their daughters anywhere.
    
    The parents who believe this will work in a positive way for their
    children should be given this opportunity, that's all.
    
    Let the rest of the parents send their kids to school that day,
    per usual (or wherever they want.)

    reply
    
>    Fred, I've BEEN a daughter (along with my sister) - would be so kind
>    as to relate your experiences as a daughter?
    
    Just as I remember. You have no daughters.  Thus by your own argument,
    you have not stake in this discussion.
    
    
>    Our parents were more successful with us than you've been with your
>    daughters so far.
    
    And what message did they give you?.  That you couldn't succeed unless
    you had special programs or discrimination in your favor?  I'd lay
    odds not.
    
    fred();

    RE: .59  Fred

    > Just as I remember. You have no daughters.  Thus by your own
    > argument, you have not stake in this discussion.

    Thus, I'm in a position to be objective (and you're not.)  :>

    Actually, your daughters are too old to participate now, so you
    have no stake in any of this either (by your argument.)

    Awhile ago, you claimed that feminists wanted this because it
    supposedly 'benefits' ***us*** (which was obvious nonsense.)
    Now you want to claim that I have no stake in this discussion 
    at all.  Make up your mind.

    >> Our parents were more successful with us than you've been with
    >> your daughters so far.
        
    > And what message did they give you?.  That you couldn't succeed
    > unless you had special programs or discrimination in your favor?  
    > I'd lay odds not.

    You haven't CITED any instances of illegal sexual discrimination
    in this topic, so there's no way to make an analogy with what my
    parents told me.

    My mother and father *did* take me to work with them on occasion,
    though.  They never took my brother (he wasn't interested.)

    I enjoyed it, though.  It made me feel special and I got to see
    things that I'd never have seen otherwise.  

    One of my Mom's bosses also taught my sister and I how to make
    water bombs (the time when we went together.)

    It was a positive experience and it worked out well for me, although
    I can't say that I've ever made a water bomb since that day.  :>

    So do you regard it as 'coddling' to find that my parents took me
    to work with them sometimes (and not my brother)?
    
    I didn't see it that way, and I know they didn't.  
    
    It's just something you've invented out of thin air.

    >    Awhile ago, you claimed that feminists wanted this because it
>    supposedly 'benefits' ***us*** (which was obvious nonsense.)
>    Now you want to claim that I have no stake in this discussion 
>    at all.  Make up your mind.

    NO, I was just referencing you argument that nobody had the right
    to tell anyone else how to raise their daughters, and you have no
    daughters.  Thus.....

>        
>    > And what message did they give you?.  That you couldn't succeed
>    > unless you had special programs or discrimination in your favor?  
>    > I'd lay odds not.
>
>    You haven't CITED any instances of illegal sexual discrimination
>    in this topic, so there's no way to make an analogy with what my
>    parents told me.

    Your answer is a nonsequitur.   

    I'd lay odds that, if the truth were known that the way your parents 
    raised you is a lot closer to the way I raised my daughters than
    the methods you advocate.

    fred();

    Btw.  I did take my dauthger to one of those TYDTW days.  After the
    first 30 min she was bored silly.
    
    fred();

    RE: .62  Fred

    >> Awhile ago, you claimed that feminists wanted this because it
    >> supposedly 'benefits' ***us*** (which was obvious nonsense.)
    >> Now you want to claim that I have no stake in this discussion 
    >> at all.  Make up your mind.

    > NO, I was just referencing you argument that nobody had the right
    > to tell anyone else how to raise their daughters, and you have no
    > daughters.  Thus.....

    What does this change?  It's **still** the case that no one has the
    right to tell anyone else what will or will not work as a positive
    message to this person's own children.

    I am a parent, as you know.

    > I'd lay odds that, if the truth were known that the way your parents 
    > raised you is a lot closer to the way I raised my daughters than
    > the methods you advocate.

    Actually, I haven't advocated complete 'child raising' methods AT ALL.

    I see the benefit of positive messages to kids (like the ones I got
    from my parents and your daughters probably didn't get from you),
    and I think that the parents who want to participate in this day with
    their children are better equipped than you are to judge whether or not
    their own children (not yours) will be helped.

    RE: .63  Fred

    > Btw.  I did take my dauthger to one of those TYDTW days.  After the
    > first 30 min she was bored silly.
        
    Not all parents have interesting jobs.  :>   A lot does depend on
    the parents involved.

    If none of the daughters in this country liked it, they wouldn't keep
    having this day year after year.

    It was only supposed to be a single occurrence, by the way.  Just one
    event held in one year.

    It grew to yearly because a lot of daughters and parents found it 
    to be a positive experience.

    
>    What does this change?  It's **still** the case that no one has the
>    right to tell anyone else what will or will not work as a positive
>    message to this person's own children.
    
    Then why do YOU keep using up disk space?
    
    fred();

    RE: .66  Fred
    
    >> What does this change?  It's **still** the case that no one has the
    >> right to tell anyone else what will or will not work as a positive
    >> message to this person's own children.
        
    > Then why do YOU keep using up disk space?
    
    Another nonsensical statement.
    
    You're telling people that this day is a negative message (which you
    can't possibly know for individual children.)
    
    I'm saying, 'Let parents decide for themselves whether it will be a
    positive or negative experience for their (not your) children.'
    
    Why don't you think I should be allowed to say this?

    
    >    Another nonsensical statement
    
    I rest my case.
    
    fred();

    
    And maybe the bigger issue, as someone pointed out earlier, is that
    there IS no CHOCE of a "take your children to work day" or a 
    "take your son to work day".  If there were, then I might consider
    that you are "just advocating choice".
    
    fred();

    No one is stopping anyone from having a 'take your sons to work day'.

    You can't complain about the lack of such a day if you (and those who
    feel as you do) aren't willing to organize one.

    If boys are being harmed by the girls' day, it's for the lack of
    initiative from those who want to stop little girls from having
    the day because they don't have the energy or the desire to do
    the work required to have one for boys.

    Don't make young girls pay the price for your lack of caring about
    young boys.

    RE: .68  Fred
    
    >> Another nonsensical statement
        
    > I rest my case.
    
    So your entire case was meant to be nonsensical.
    
    You've met your goal, then.  :>
    

    If those who support the girls' day were entirely against the idea of
    having one for boys, you might wonder why.

    No one here is against it, though.  The boys can have their day - all 
    you have to do is to organize one (and it's not impossible to do since
    the way has already been paved by the girls' day that has gone before
    it.)

    If you're not willing to organize a day for boys, then don't complain
    that one has been organized for girls.

    Instead, think of how much care went into the idea of trying to encourage
    young children.

    
>    You can't complain about the lack of such a day if you (and those who
>    feel as you do) aren't willing to organize one.
    
    Does make it kind of hard to start one when every discussion on the
    subject gets trashed and ratholed by a certain noter.
    
    fred();

    Fred, no one here was trying to organize a trip to the toilet in
    this topic before the discussion got going.

    As for the discussion, there wasn't a real discussion here AT ALL
    until someone (Atlant) stepped forward to disagree with the status 
    quo in this file.

    If you really want to organize a day for boys, GO FOR IT.  No one
    will stop you.

    If you want to STOP the day for girls because you don't have the
    gumption to start one for boys, someone is likely to disagree with
    you about it.

    
    
>    Fred, no one here was trying to organize a trip to the toilet in
>    this topic before the discussion got going.
    
    You mean you don't even have try anymore?
    
    
>    As for the discussion, there wasn't a real discussion here AT ALL
>    until someone (Atlant) stepped forward to disagree with the status 
>    quo in this file.
    
    See title Mennotes 260.0
    
    fred();

    If Atlant hadn't expressed his dissenting opinion in this topic,
    this discussion would never have occurred.

    So don't blame the dissenters for disrupting it. 

    The dissension *is* the discussion.  The rathole is what you're
    trying to talk about now (which has nothing to do with days for
    little girls or little boys.)
    

    If you really want to organize a day for boys, go for it.

    It can't be that hard to do.  Women did it already, and 
    you're darn well equal to women when it comes to ability.

    My best wishes for your success in this.

    
>    If Atlant hadn't expressed his dissenting opinion in this topic,
 >   this discussion would never have occurred.
    
    Wasn't talking about Atlant.
    
    As for "take your SONS to work day.  That request has been made
    several times.  Guess we'll have to take a page from "equal
    rights" playbook and take themto court?  Citing numerous instances
    of disruption of discussions of the matter by certan members
    of the company?
      
    fred();

    RE: .78  Fred

    > As for "take your SONS to work day.  That request has been made
    > several times.

    Fred. please cite names, places and the specific decisions and rulings
    about a 'take your SONS to work day'.  Who asked and who refused?

    Also, was it presented as a protest to the "take our daughters to work
    day" (with insulting language about this day), or was it requested as
    a real opportunity for young boys?

    > Guess we'll have to take a page from "equal rights" playbook and take 
    > themto court?  Citing numerous instances of disruption of discussions 
    > of the matter by certan members of the company?

    You'd have to prove that someone repeatedly disrupted your efforts to
    organize a boys' day (even though NO such efforts are evident AT ALL
    in this topic.)  It's not enough to state that a woman was repeatedly
    addressed in this discussion and she actually responded to the notes.

    Even if you could prove that the organization efforts were disrupted 
    (which you can't), you'd have to prove that the topics in this notesfile 
    were your only avenue for organizing such an event.

    All in all, I'd say that you don't have a prayer.

    Come back to earth, Fred.  We agreed to disagree.  We still disagree.
    So what?

    
    Again, I implore you to organize your own day for boys.

    I'd be totally supportive of such an effort, if it were sincere.

    
    And what if we'd rather have a "take your children to work day"?
    
    What if the majority would rather have a "take your children to 
    work day".  And _that_ discussion _is_ being disrupted.
    
    fred();

    RE: .81  Fred

    > And what if we'd rather have a "take your children to work day"?

    You may or may not succeed in getting Digital Equipment Corporation
    and our society to do this (if you do actually try to make this change.)

    If you're simply looking to discuss it here as an issue, be prepared 
    for dissenting opinions about this.  

    If you think dissenting opinions should not be allowed, take it up 
    with corporate human resources.

    
>    If you think dissenting opinions should not be allowed, take it up 
>    with corporate human resources.
    
    
    Dissenting opoinions can be made, but what you have been doing 
    goes beyond dissenting opinion.  And I'm not the only one fed
    up with it.
    
    fred();

    Fred, your note has nothing whatever to do with this topic.

    Do you intend to try to organize a boys' day or a childrens'
    day (or what?)

    Our entire country is based on the idea that we're free to
    disagree about social and political issues.

    We've agreed to disagree, and we most definitely do.  So we're
    right in line with the spirit of independence which founded 
    this country.

Suzanne,

I hate to drag you and Fred out of your personal catfight, but may I 
ask you:

Why would you prefer to see a separate "sons to work" day?
Is there a benefit gained from segregating boys and girls in this way?

regards,
//alan

    Alan, I'd love to answer your question but it would only result in a
    continuation of the discussion about this issue (which will create a
    serious crisis in this notesfile.)

    Please don't address me here again.

    Sorry,
    Suzanne

    Alan,

    Studies have proven that boys dominate a mixed learning session.
    Girls are not as likely to step forward and ask questions in this
    type of environment.  It is known that single sex learning venues
    work well for both genders.  Boys tend to crowd forward.  Girls
    hang back.  Those girls that tend to crowd forward and ask questions
    have, in the past, been treated like they are from a different 
    planet and mostly overlooked.  Studies have shown that boys are 
    called on more than girls in mixed environments.  Your local 
    library would most likely provide you with all the data you might
    want to research on this issue.  Just talk with your friendly
    librarian.

    justme

    I'm confused.  Would a Take Your Child To Work Day really be a
    'mixed learning session?'  Seems to me that, no matter if you were
    a daughter or a son, you'd still be at work with your parent and
    probably not in a mixed group of kids with all the boys crowding
    forward and all the girls in the background. (This mixed learning
    session argument is hard to grasp here, though I AM aware that
    this dynamic exists.)
    
    I LOVE the idea of Take Your Daughter To Work Day.  My youngest
    daughter came to work with me last year and really loved it. I've
    brought her in before, and since, but there was just something
    'special' about us both being here on that particular day.
    
    Personally, I think both boys AND girls need to have something
    that makes them feel special ... whether it's a day, an event or
    even just a special acknowledgment (a smile ... kiss on the
    cheek ... a hug).
    
    Just curious ... Fred - do you feel slighted in some way because
    of this special day for daughters?  (I'm sorry ... I guess I just
    don't understand your point of view yet.  I'm trying, though.)
    
    Robert
    
    (So much for my RO status)

    
    re .88

>    Just curious ... Fred - do you feel slighted in some way because
>    of this special day for daughters?  (I'm sorry ... I guess I just
>    don't understand your point of view yet.  I'm trying, though.)

    No, I just believe that in spite of all the good intentions that
    take "take your daughter to work" actually gives the opposite
    message than intended.  In reality reinforcing the attitude that
    girls cannot succeed unless given some special treatment.

    Maybe its the attitude of the girls who hang back in mixed groups
    that needs addressing.  After all, they will live and work in 
    mixed groups all their lives.  Segregating them is an artificial
    environment.  

    A bit more about my older daughter.  When she was born there was
    a problem with her breathing and she ended up with a bit of brain
    damage and a slight case of Cerible Paulsey.  So given where she is
    from where she started, she doesn't have to hang her head to anybody.
    When she decided to enroll in martial arts class I encouraged it.
    She had a rough time.  Nobody cut her any slack and she had to 
    pass the same tests as anybody else.  But when two gang-bangers 
    decided that she and her brother would be an easy target, well, the 
    blood on my kids when they came home didn't belong to my kids.

    My younger daughter, well, the boys don't like to play football with
    her.

    fred()

Jacqui,

Thanks for your note.  If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt what
you say, then there may be a case for separate days...while we educate all
pupils in 'how to present themselves with confidence'!

What you say about benefiting from single-sex education is interesting.  My
experience of folk who have gone to single-sex schools is such that I would
never send one of my sprogs to such a school!

regards,
//alan

    
    "Be tough on your kids.  Otherwise they will grow up to be losers
    and drug users"--John Claud VanDamm.

    No, this doesn't mean that you should abuse them and be mean to them.
    What is means is that you don't coddle them and treat them as victims.
    If you treat them as a victim, then that is the attitude that they
    grow up with.  If you make them face problems as just one more piece
    of s**t they will have to deal with in life, then they learn to 
    deal with problems.  And you don't have to do that without showing
    them that you love them.

    fred();

    Daughters are not treated as victims when they come to work on a 
    special day, of course.  They are treated as valued guests (in
    much the way that customers are treated when they visit a site.)

    If we couldn't treat our daughters as though they are as valuable
    to us as our customers, then we'd have a big, big problem.

    (Reminds me of the commercial on TV where the kids want to go to
    the beach but their Mom is waiting for a call from a client, and
    one of the kids asks, "When do I get to be a client?")

    The daughters are very much valued on their days at work.

    
    I guess I'm not supposed to respond to Suzanne, but she should feel
    free to respond to me???
    fred();
    

    re:  .91
    
    Can't we coddle them without treating them as victims?  I think so.
    With both my daughters, I see them greet special consideration with
    enthuasism.  Having a special day, a day just for THEM, made (makes)
    them feel special.  It seems to give them more confidence and in no
    way made them feel unequal (better or worse) to anyone else ... it
    just made them feel ... special.   :)
    
    Both my daughters have 'grown up' quickly over the last few years.
    Both are out in the working world.  And neither of them hesitate to
    take on any job or task, even the ones that are considered by many
    to be a 'man's job.  I wasn't tough of them.  Neither was their
    Mom.
    
    I remember having a Father and Son Day in Little League.  It was a
    special day for Dads and Sons and, actually, was probably no
    different than any other day at the Little Leage field ... but
    it felt very different.  And you know what?  I didn't grow up feeling
    as though my 'special day for boys' put me a step ahead or behind
    any of the girls.  It was just some fun time with my Dad.
    
    Tough?  No.  I don't think we need to be tough.  
    
    I talked with my oldest about this last night.  She pulled a Rodney
    King on me ... "Dad.  Why can't we all just get along?  I mean, we're
    all humans."  Seems so simple for her.
    
    Robert

    
    My comment was general in nature.
    
    Daughters are treated as valuable as customers on the day they visit,
    that's all.
    

    
    "Nothing generates self esteem like facing a problem--and succeeding"
    -Rush Limbaugh
    
    fred();

    
    "Customers are really everything."
    
                    Digital Equipment Corporation
    
                                      

    
    Digital's stock is 27 3/4 this morning.
    
    fred();

    
    We won't improve it by deciding to give less care to customers, though.
                    

    One of our biggest problems here at the CSC is that for too many
    years we'd do pretty much anything that the customer asked.  
    (Whether they were paying us _anything_ or not). Now we are trying 
    to educate them on what service they are paying for (if any) and 
    what is "consulting" and that they should pay extra for. It's causing 
    a lot of grief for customers and support people alike.

    Just as in anything else "Our customers are everything" can be taken
    to an extreme--of giving away the company.  I also think the statement
    is a bit dishonest on Digital's part because like any other business
    "Profit is everything",  though your policies in reaching that may
    vary.  

    fred();

    If all the customers go away someday, we will fold up our tents.

    Nothing will be left at all, except for a few scrap heaps to sell
    to other companies (where our former customers have gone.)

    We may need and want a good profit, interesting tasks, a good work 
    environment, and a nice living for our families - but if all the 
    customers walk away, we can kiss our collective burgundy butt goodbye.
    
    It'll all be over.

    

    
    It can also be taken to the other extreme.  I recall a few years back
    where we had "the year of the customer" and basically gave them 
    _anything_.  The next year the President of the company that came
    up with that idea and half the employees of the company were no
    longer with the company.
    
    Same goes for employees.  I remember such things as weekend trips
    to Vail and Breckenridge, and compay picnics to Elitches, that no 
    longer happen even thought they were _great_ for company moral.
    
    Yet another exampel of good_intentions != intended_results.
    
    fred();

    
    C.A.R.E. ("Customers are really everything") is happening in 1997.

    Obviously, our current President realizes that our original President
    was on the right track (even though we'd taken a few unfortunate 
    turns in a changing market when our first President retired.)

    The company weekends and picnics *were* great for company morale
    (which was the intended result.)  They just weren't affordable.

    Now we have "success sharing" in 1997 (which has the same intended 
    result and is affordable sometimes.)  :>

    The company knows that pleasing customers and rewarding employees
    is good business, in general.
    

    
    >    C.A.R.E. ("Customers are really everything") is happening in 1997.

    So is "Back to Basics".  If you haven't heard about it, you will soon.
    We seem to have two diametrically opposing policies here (so what else
    is new).

    fred();

    Coworkers Are Really Escaping.:)
    
    how bout that one?:)

    
    The only way the two policies could be diametrically opposed is if
    the principle of "Back to Basics" is that 'customers are nothing'
    (which I seriously doubt.)

    C.A.R.E. ("customers are really everything") has posters up all over
    the building as we speak.

    Where are the "Back to Basics" posters??  :>

    
    >    Where are the "Back to Basics" posters??  :>
    
    Never fear, they are comming.  
    
    The principle is that we are no longer going to give away services
    like we have been (at least that is the intent).  And as I said
    customers are quite used to the way we used to do things, and it's
    been quite painful for the teams that have implimented it.
    
    And there are promises that this time absolutely, positivlly they
    will get the customer access database straightened out--now that's
    one they are going to have to show me.
    
    fred();

    
    Those who PAY ('the customers') are still really everything, even in
    this new policy.  :>
    

    
>    Those who PAY ('the customers') are still really everything, even in
>    this new policy.  :>
    
    You'd think that if the company was really serious, then we'd be
    supporting fewer (paying) customers with the same number of 
    specialists.  Howver, the practice has been that as soon as
    call volume drops, the company starts lopping off "head count".
    Now which of the policies does the actual practice fit?
    
    fred();

    
    C.A.R.E. ("customers are really everything") is a 1997 policy.

    Whatever we've been doing in the past, the goal seems to be to
    make this policy true now and in the future.

    
    Well, just as good intentions, if slogans equaled results we would
    all be rolling in it.  Good slogans are all fine and good, but
    if they don't match company (not just specialist) actions, then,
    as the man said "SHOW ME THE MONEY".

    fred();

    
    Well, again, it's a 1997 campaign in MCS (not just a slogan) so it's
    something the company is trying very hard to accomplish, evidently.

    The most difficult part could be to get the cooperation of some people
    within MCS-Digital to make it a reality.

    Wish 'em all the luck in the world for this part.

A 1997 policy?  

You mean it's meant to last for thw _whole_ of 1997?

Nah...

//atp

    
    Just meant that it's happening now.
    

Sorry, I just slipped into a slightly cynical mood :-)

regards,
//alan

    what are you people talking about?
    
    DougO

    DougO-
    
    I dunno, but I'd wager is someone posted a note about what colour the
    sky is, Fred and Suzanne would still argue the point :-)

    Dam good thing this isn't a decussion on a zebra.:) White on black or
    black on white.:)

    
    If you feel strong about this issue and wish to address your concerns, 
    issues, and proposal for a change from TYDTWD 'Take your kids Day', 
    	please contact:
    
    	1) Ted Campbell (US Employee Relations)
        2) John Murphy (Open Door Mgr)
    	CC: Bruce Davidson (Mgr of Worklife function)
    
    It is very unclear who is responsible in making such policy decisions,
                         
    Bruce Davidson  would refer you to Ted and John.

From my experience it appears to be very site specific.  I've been in sites 
with TYDaughterTWD and ones with TYKidTWD and ones with nothing.  I've been 
in sites hwere the kids just followed their parents around and ones with 
programs set up with tours and demos.  

     I finally found out from Bruce Davidson that the decision to have 
        'TYDTWD' or 'take your child to work day' is made at the facilities
        level by the HR management. For PKO please email your vote to 
        Sherry Ryder, for status quo or for a change. 
    

    Once again a really non-issue has become entangled with political
    agendas.  I question the actual usefulness of the programs to begin
    with as they seem to be rather a waste of time in most instances.
    
    If a parent really wants to have their child obtain an understanding of
    the workplace there are many ways to accomplish that without some
    politically correct program that is a waste of time.  At the minimum
    htis program should be run, for both boys and girls, during non-school
    times such as vacations of school holidays.  Right now most kids view
    this as another day off from school.
    
    It really interesting, though, to see all of the feminists contort
    themselves into twists to justify a sexist program.  they like to claim
    separate but equal on this, but raise holy hell over the Boy
    scouts/Girl Scouts.  they are really getting more and more pathetic
    each day.
    

    In this issue, young girls who go to work with their parents have
    become weapons to use in the anti-feminist agenda.

    Allowing young girls to go to their parents' workplace without boys
    one day per year is not a danger to anyone.  It's simply a convenient
    thing to get in a twist over when you're already torqued at feminism.

    Suzanne, your looking for boogie men under your bed or lurking in the
    closet. Its not that way. Children, reguardless of gender, need
    encouragement. Inspiring children at any level is a wise thing. We are
    going to make a better system if we include Both than one over the
    other. 
    
    If your son was younger, wouldn't you feel the same? I have a daughter
    and am an avocate of having Both genders. The world cannot exist with
    just one gender. 
    
    
    Peace
     

    As the mother of a son, I'd certainly be concerned and aware if this
    one day for young girls had the potential to harm him in any way (at
    any age.)

    It doesn't.

    You're looking for boogie men under your own bed when you think that 
    one day a year for girls has the potential to harm anyone.

    .126
    
    Do you really think that a "one-day-a-year" school vacation day has any
    positive influence on a child, regardless of sex?
    
    If the intent is to provide information to children about career
    options and opportunities there are a lot better ways than this, which
    has just degraded into a stupid political program with no merit.
    

    Sure, I think the day has a positive influence on young girls (and
    I'm positive that the founders of this day believed it would have
    such a positive effect, too.)

    Does it harm anyone?  Of course not.

    It's just being used as an opportunity for some to throw darts at 
    feminists (because it's what they wanted to do anyway.)

    .128
    
    Several things wrong with this.  The first is that if it's a good
    program then it would be a good program in July or August.  there is no
    reason why this needs to be done during the school year.  the fact that
    it is indicates that there is more than just a good opportunity to see
    career options at work.
    
    The second is that if it'sa good program then it would be good for all
    children and should never have been a "girls only" program.
    
    Lastly, if this was a program directed toward stay-at-home moms so
    there daughters could see and experience other options, then that would
    be something entirely different.  For a working mom to take their
    daughter to work to show them career opportunities out of the home,
    seems to be rather silly since the child already knows mom works
    outside the house.
    
    This started as a political issue and has continued to be promoted as a
    political issue.
    
    If you really wanted to see that kids, boith boys and girls, were
    exposed to career possibilities then all of those folks who participate
    could bring their kid any day of the year.  They do not need to
    participate in a politacal activity, unless that is the real agenda.
    

    Perhaps you'd be happier if there was a special day for boys to be
    shown the opportunities of being a stay-at-home parent (since this
    is a non-traditional role for boys.)

    Boys know that their parents go to work everyday, so apparently
    you see no benefit at all to having boys go to work with parents
    one day per year.

    I do see benefit for girls, though.  So let's just keep it to girls.


    (By the way, I read an op-ed piece awhile back which described one
    mother keeping her daughter at home on the 'Take Our Daughters to
    Work Day', since that's where she works.  It was allowed as being
    part of the program.)

    .130
    
    YOu make an unfortunate mistake in logic.  You also assume I see no
    benefit for boys to see what a parent does at work.  I believe that
    kids should be able to see what worklife is like.
    
    I do not, however, see any purpose in making it a political event.
    
    If you think it's a good idea for girls to accompany their parents to
    work, then by all means schedule two, three days during summer vacation
    to really immerse the kids in work careers.  Also, present if for
    children, not boys or girls.
    
    If that is too radical of a concept for you to accept, non-gender bias,
    that is truly unfortunate.
    

    Man-a-live. So your saying, Suzanne, that stay at home moms only have
    minor children that are girls? No minor children that are boys?
    Wooooo-eee!:)

    "For a working mom to take their daughter to work to show them career 
    opportunities out of the home, seems to be rather silly since the child 
    already knows mom works outside the house." [You wrote this a few back.]

    Boys know this, too, don't they?

    Thus, if you see no value to boys, then don't include them.

    However, I do see the value to girls, so I believe that the original
    program for girls should be continued (as is).

    RE: .132  George Rauh

    > Man-a-live. So your saying, Suzanne, that stay at home moms only
    > have minor children that are girls? No minor children that are boys?
    > Wooooo-eee!:)

    Only in your fertile imagination.  :>

    One woman kept her daughter at home to show her what stay-at-home moms
    do every day.  She could have kept her son at home just as easily to
    show him the same thing (as I indicated in my note.)

    Suzanne..... your again, off base. Very sorry about this, really.
    Children are very important, reguardless of their gender. And your
    saying that there is one that should take prefernce over another. Sorry
    friend, I don't by it.

    .133
    
    You seem to have aproblem with equality.  If a program is to expose
    children to career opportunities, why do you think that only girls can
    benefit from this?
    
    My objection is not based on gender nor whether there is value to this. 
    My objection is the gender bias behind the concept and the continuation
    of a sexist program.  You seem to think that sexism is OK as long as it
    is only directed at men or boys.  I tend to think that sexism is
    unacceptable no matter the form it takes.
    

    One day per year isn't enough to constitute prefernce of one over
    the other.
    
    My child is a male - if I believed that he could ever have been
    harmed by such a venture, I sure as heck wouldn't support it.
    
    Boys are not harmed by taking a day (once per year) to bring girls
    to their parents' workplaces.
    

    RE: .136  Rocush

    > You seem to have a problem with equality.  

    Thanks for the spray of icewater all over my computer screen.

    > If a program is to expose children to career opportunities, 
    > why do you think that only girls can benefit from this?
        
    I'm more than happy to support a day for boys.  However, you seem
    to think that the idea is 'silly' in general, since children already
    know that their parents work.

    Well, you may not see a benefit for boys, but I do see one for
    girls (and actually, I see the benefit for boys if you want to
    start a day for them, too.)  

    Meanwhile, I'd like to see the day for girls left alone.

    > My objection is not based on gender nor whether there is value to
    > this.  My objection is the gender bias behind the concept and the
    > continuation of a sexist program.  

    It's been obvious for a long time that the real objection to this
    program is that companies (like Digital) are admitting to the general
    discrimination in the workplace that women sometimes receive in our
    culture.

    > You seem to think that sexism is OK as long as it is only directed 
    > at men or boys.  I tend to think that sexism is unacceptable no matter 
    > the form it takes.

    No, I simply disagree with you about what constitutes sexism.

    Oh, the horror.  The horror.  :>

    .138
    
    You have entered a lot of incorrect notes, but none moreso than this
    one.
    
    These programs are inapprpriate unless they support both boys and
    girls.  whether I think they are a good idea or not is irrelavant.
    
    Please try to keep your computer screen clean and try to get a real
    understanding of equality, it is not gender based.
    

Re: .137

Ok, Suzanne - how many days would it take before boys are harmed?  Where's
the cutover?  Do you apply the same logic to other things?  Maybe one
crude sexual suggestion per year won't harm girls?

					Steve

    RE: .140  Steve

    > Ok, Suzanne - how many days would it take before boys are harmed? 
    > Where's the cutover?  

    No one is looking to increase the number of days until we reach the
    threshold for harming boys (in fact, I've seen nothing to prove
    that boys would be harmed if girls simply moved to their parents'
    workplace for the rest of their childhoods.)

    As it happens, we're talking about one day (with the stipulation that
    those of us who support this day would fully support any/all efforts
    to have an additional day set aside for boys.)

    > Do you apply the same logic to other things?  Maybe one crude sexual 
    > suggestion per year won't harm girls?

    How do you translate a positive day for girls into some sort of overt 
    slap in the face for boys?  Do you really think that they'll be scarred
    for life by going to school one day per year where a small percentage
    of the girls at school will be missing?

    What happens to boys who attend single sex schools?  Do they get a
    virtual slap in the face by knowing that OTHER boys are going to school
    that day with a slightly smaller set of girl classmates?

    What overt thing happens to boys when girls are given a positive
    experience without them?

    Once again, I've not read all responses to this note, only the first
    25. So sue me.
    
    I've had the opportunity to take my daughter to just one "Daughters at
    work Day".
    
    She loved it immensely. I loved it as much as she did.
    
    She didn't feel she was competing with boys her age; she doesn't need
    to. She can do the things that boys her age can, as well as, or better
    than, most boys can. 
    
    I felt it was an opportunity for her to see what I did at DEC. She came
    away feeling that she, too, could do my job, if and when she chose to.
    She also came away feeling that Digital really gave women equal chances
    to succeed. These wer her observations, BTW.
    
    She's bright and outgoing. I really enjoyed this day with her.
    
    I don't feel I was shortchanging her brother, or favoring her. I just
    really enjoyed letting her know that Digital recognized the special
    bond between fathers and daughters. And that there are opportunities
    out there, limited only by her desire and abilities.
    
    -john

    Great note, John.
    
    Thanks,
    Suzanne
    

    .141
    
    I guess it's time to put this into perspective and find out exactly
    where you stand.
    
    Since you seem to believe that one day out of a year is no big negative
    for boys, but a huge positive for girls, and boys should not be
    complaining, then what would be your position if the girls were
    excluded and a day for boys was the only one that existed?  Since boys
    couldn't be harmed by having something special for girls, then girls
    can't be harmed by having soething special for boys.
    
    I think we need to eliminate this day and have one just for boys
    effective this year and for the next 10 years.  Why is it that I don't
    think this owuld be acceptable to you.
    

    Rocush, you forget that I'm totally and completely in favor of having
    a different day for boys (which would exclude girls on that particular
    day.)  So each sex would have a turn at being included while the other
    sex was excluded.

    So your question is completely inappropriate to reflect my views.

    Ask me if I'd be happy for girls and boys to EACH have a day set aside
    for them (where the other sex was excluded) and I'd say, "Absolutely!"
    

    .145
    
    So in other words you have no problem with boys and girls having
    separate opportunities, but there is no reason to include them in the
    same activity.
    
    I think you would find a lot of opposition to that position.  Or do you
    apply this rule only to this rather questionable activity.
    

    They would have the SAME EXACT OPPORTUNITY, in the SAME EXACT place,
    with the SAME EXACT people, doing the SAME EXACT things.

    They would simply do these things on different days.

    What on God's green earth is so questionable about encouraging children?

    In Japan, don't they have a "Boys Day" and a "Girls Day"?

    (Or do they just have "Childrens Day"?)

    I can't recall now (even though I once lived there), but it seems 
    to me that they have different days for the sexes.

    Over here, we have Mothers Day and Fathers Day - perhaps we should
    eliminate both of them as being sexist (and simply have "Parents Day"
    instead.)

    Does anyone here think it's sexist to have separate days for Mothers
    and Fathers?  Why would they need to be on different days, after all??

    They have a day for both, why not a day for both or just combine. Plain
    logic says do both on one day thus less interuptions from school or
    such. Sides, I don't seem to reconize any more single sex boys schools
    around here. Brooks, Lawrence, etc all seem to be both sex's. No single
    sex schools out side of the military school in S. Carolina. 
    

    Why not eliminate Fathers Day and Mothers Day, when we could have
    one Sunday called "Parents Day"?
    
    If you think separate days for kids to come to work is sexist, then
    surely, Mothers Day and Fathers Day are both sexist as well.
    
    Please answer this.
    

    i don't want a 'parents day'; the separate ones make it easier
    on the pocketbook.
    
    

    If you do want to keep Fathers Day, please explain why.
    
    Otherwise, you should be willing to share it with Mothers.
    

    Christine, it shouldn't matter how it affects the pocketbook.

    If separate days for Mothers and Fathers are sexist, then 
    the Fathers here should be willing to share their days (if
    they are arguing against different days for boys and girls
    on this same principle.)

    I think that Parents day would be a good thing. Gee Suzanne, the vote
    hasn't come out yet. Its not an official, from the Gods, a done deal,
    cast in concrete, bronze, etc.
    

    ah!  i never said i thought either one was sexist, tho, 
    Suzanne.  I was trying in my own inept way to bring some
    levity to the subject at hand.
    
    it just seems to me that in past years, this discussion has
    been held every time this event rolls around and it would
    be much easier to reread all that's gone before rather than
    to rehash it.  
    
    as for ty(d or s) days go, about the only new thing i've seen
    suggested which makes sense to be is to schedule such days 
    during summer vacation.
    
    having participated as a panelist  a few years ago for a tydtwd,
    i will say it was a positive experience for all involved and *I*
    learned a thing or two about what other women were doing.
    
    i don't see a problem with offering the program to both genders
    on different days.  program implementation is what makes or breaks
    it.  i've seen the casual thing where the kids just come in with and
    hang out with the parents.  i don't think that provides as much value
    as having had something like the panel i participated in does.  in the
    panel situation, you got to hear from many other successful women and
    see the diversity of roles we played in the corporation.  i think this
    would work wonderfully for boys, too.
    
    i do think to some extent, the notion behind the push for the
    daughter's day was to better show young girls that they are not limited
    in their potential.  IMO, tho it may seem sexist to some, i believe we
    still need a lot of work in this area.

I'm all for a "Parents Day". Great idea.

I'd ask if this digression could get any sillier, but I've been 
around long enough to already know the answer to that one.

Have at it.  

<snicker>

    While we're on Parent's Day, why not a Take Your Parents To Work
    day? Let 'em know where all that tuition money wound up...

    And don't forget grandparents day, and great grandparents, and
    great-great-grandparents.:) 

    Since just about every holiday, etc has been turned into a commercial
    event for the sale of various "gifts" I would just as soon see all of
    them eliminated as opposed to combined.
    
    I can just see it now.  The offical "Take your daughter to work day"
    greeting card.  that would make this so-called event just about totally
    silly and worthless.  Although I'm sure there are those that would rush
    right out and buy them.
    

    Why not eliminate Fathers Day and Mothers Day, when we could have
    one Sunday called "Parents Day"?
    
I always thought that Mother's day and Father's day were commercial rip-offs
invented by card companies to screw the gullible.  So yes, I'd happily see
them merged, or preferebly, abandoned.  Surely we should be thinking of our
parents much more frequently than one day set aside by commercial interests.

I would also remind those who argue in favour of segregation that aprtheid was
not originally intended to help improve the lot of black folk in South Africa.
Sexual apartheid doesn't appeal to me.

regards,
//alan

    Alan, bathrooms in public places also amount to sexual apartheid (by
    your own definition.)

    It's easy for you to trivialize what happened in South Africa by 
    calling absolutely anything which momentarily separates the sexes 
    by this horrid name, but I'd like to ask you to stop it.

    If Apartheid had occurred on ONE DAY PER YEAR, in a situation where
    whites and blacks would go (once per year) to the SAME EXACT PLACES
    to have the SAME EXACT OPPORTUNITIES to do the SAME EXACT THINGS,
    no one in the world would have pressured South Africa to stop it.

    No one.

    .161
    
    At what point would you have a problem with your concept.  What if it
    were two days a year?  Five days a year?  30 days a year?  At what
    point is separate but equal a problem?
    

    It doesn't become a problem until one sex has opportunities that the
    other sex can never possibly have (such as one sex being totally
    excluded from one particular type of place where the most important
    business deals in the country are made.)

    It becomes discrimination when one type of experience cannot possibly
    be duplicated in a comparable way (and one sex is completely excluded
    from the opportunities that go with it.)


    This simply isn't happening with this particular event.  The benefits
    are internal to the children (i.e., encouragement) and they can be
    duplicated in many, many, MANY ways.

    .163
    
    Then you have no objection to the total exclusion of males from any
    activity, event or location as long as they can receive an identical
    experience at a different, time, place or entity.
    
    I see.
    

    
    Let's look at it on a case by case basis (because what you may
    regard as an identical experience at the same place and the same
    entity, but merely a different time, may not really be identical.)
    

    The local paper, Nashua Telegraph, has a sports writer. He feels it
    necessary to call a local wrestling coach a sexist because, on a case
    by case basis, was affraid of having a minor girl hurt. She wanted to
    join, and I guess she is now on the team. But he, the coach was called
    a sexist. Nice name to hang on someone because your trying to protect
    from harm a student. Case by case..... inch by inch.... Sllooooowly we
    turn! Niagra Falls!!:)
    
    

    Could someone please tell me what day TYDTWD is, I'd appreciate it.
    
    Thanks

    .165
    
    It seems as if you just ansered the question.  As soon as you separate
    the groups you, by necessity, have changed the experience.  this would
    mean that the two events are not identical, merely similar.  If similar
    experiences are OK in this instance then there are a lot of other
    similar-but-not-identical activites that should be grouped under the
    same umbrella.
    

    .167
    Read from .0 on and you will get an understanding. 

    Seems the free day off for kids passed with no major problems. 
    Discrimination gets to stay fro another year.
    
    I wonder if fewer schools, businesses and parents are falling for this
    junk?
    

I may not agree with it entirely either, but if you have this much of a
problem with it, then why don't you stop b---hing about it and try to change
it to your liking?

-Bob

    I didn't get any mail messages about the subject. There were no
    children in our site showing up. I am saddened about this. But!! I have
    Eva, my daughter, signed up for socker! She had her first game this
    weekend. It was great to see them out there playing. Eva has a bad case
    of the 'couch potatos'. And this weekend she ran more miles in one two
    weeks of training than she has done in her entire life.:) It makes me
    very happy.:) There were some great mistakes made,<who care!>. I laughed 
    hard, and there was fun had by all. 

    .171
    
    It has nothing to do with my liking.  It has to do with the politics
    that have become part if this joke.
    
    OBTW, I have been working very diligently whenever I get the chance to
    have this changed and make it a real experience for the children.  The
    first step is getting the political agendas out of it, however.