Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    To me, there's a huge difference between saying "Every person should
    be accorded an equal opportunity to succeed" and "Let's turn the
    tables and discriminate against a different segment of population."
    Yes, if women are treated more equitably, men will have to compete
    with a larger collection of people, but Arpad, I get the impression
    that you don't see the difference between these two concepts.
    
    Liz

    I think, Arpad, that the pendulum is going to have to continue to
    swing radically in the other direction before a true semblance of
    balance can be achieved.  My reasoning behind this is that extremes
    have a tendency to be noticed and dealt with far more promptly than
    temperance and evolution.  There have been grave injustices for
    many years, and there will probably continue to be injustices for
    many more years, or, at least, until the "New Generation" finally
    becomes fully matured.  I, personally, support anyone who has suffered
    an injustice simply because I *know* how it feels to be the victim
    of such acts; therefore, I make an effort to be as fair as I can
    to all people, male or female, child or adult, of whatever color
    or sexual preference they may be.  I cannot change the world, but,
    as an individual, I can do my part to improve my corner of it. 
    I also do my part to speak out against injustice whenever I find
    it.  For now, it's the best I can do.
    
    In Support-
    
    Barb                                  

    <--(.0)
          
� 	At present there seem to be various processes, or legislation, in 
� 	place, or in development, which may cause the active promotion of 
� 	groups which have previously been discriminated against. 
�       ...
�       It may go to the extent of ensuring that certain 
� 	numbers of people who are promoted to various levels must be 
� 	selected from designated minorities. It may go further, in that for 
� 	for past discrimination, the percentage of minorities and women
� 	who are advanced must be greater than their percentage in the general
� 	population or in the population in the organization.
    
 
    Arpad, can you tell me what exactly you're talking about here and
    where you're getting your information?  The only legislation I know
    of that *ever* has any such effect is the federal Affirmative Action
    law.  That's been in place for 15 years already(!) and you can
    easily see what effect it has had on the opportunities for caucasian
    men:  it has made it possible for women and members of minority
    groups to get *some* of the desirable jobs.  It only includes
    provision for quotas in the case of the EEOC or a federal court
    determining that there is *continued, blatant* discrimation,
    otherwise the only requirement is one of making a "good-faith
    effort" to promote *qualified* members of protected groups. 
    
    Unless you have clear information about some new legislation that
    has somehow made it past Reagan's veto without anyone finding out
    about it, I think you're scaring yourself unnecessarily. 
    
    						=maggie
                                                            

    Were you around for the long discussion in Soapbox about Affirmative
    Action?  Someone raised the same point -- "I haven't be discriminatory
    so why should I have to suffer?  That's hardly fair."  True.  My
    position, like yours, is that there's really no fair response to
    the situation.  It's not fair for the sins of the fathers to be
    visited on the sons.  On the other hand, it will take years to correct
    the imbalances created by the past through 'natural' measures. 
    Is it fair to make the deprived ones wait even longer for the things
    that the privileged consider theirs by right?
    
    This 'reverse discrimination' should be used as a catalyst.  It
    should create momentum.  Those who have been deprived are now in
    a better position to speed up the 'natural' process of education
    and training.  Even if they do not directly affect those processes,
    they provide inspiration and tangible evidence that success is
    possible.  Even if they can't help goals be met, they can help goals
    be set.  It's not fair, but it at least serves a purpose.

    Since Arpad has not yet replied, and node names in Canada are easily
    recognizable by Canadians (he's in Toronto), I decided to add my
    understanding of the CANADIAN legislation that attempts to be
    equivalent to the U.S. Affirmative Action Program. (I believe that's
    what Arpad was referring to).  To do business with the Federal
    Government in Canada requires an employer to divulge employee breakdown
    by gender and heritage, and level of job.  If the employer does not
    release this information, or does not meet the Government's criteria,
    they are not eligible to compete for Government contracts or sell to
    the Government.  Fair enough so far. 
    
    However, some employers are now being accused of hiring and/or
    promoting minorites (native Indians in Canada are poorly represented in
    the workplace) and women just to meet criteria, whether the individuals
    are qualified or not.  This is a dispicable practice for any reason,
    just as NOT hiring or promoting QUALIFIED minorities or women is.  The
    end result is some caucasian males are beginning to feel discriminated
    against in hiring and promotion practices.  I am a 35-year old
    caucasian male, and found I was being tugged into thinking this way -
    until I stopped to asess my self-worth and chosen employer.  End of
    anxiety! If I am confident in my abilities and believe my employer is
    fair, I need not worry.  DEC Canada Personnel has also reinforced this. 
    
    This is not meant to negate Arpad's points and feelings.  I too
    would be very concerned if I became unemployed or was searching
    for a change in the near future;  some employers may be unscrupulous.
    
    Otto.
    
    P.S. - It irks me how we phrase things sometimes.  All info on this
    topic refers to "women and minorities", and worse sometimes
    "minorities, including women"!  When did women become a minority?!
    (Shoot, I probably did it too in the above!) :-)                                                                       
    

    
    I certainly don't support discrimination, nor have I seen support for
    discrimination of any sort in this notesfile.  I do want to offer an
    experience, though, that has a bearing on some claims of discrimination
    by non-minority males.
    
    For years, qualifications were seen as a mix of quantitative attributes
    (experience, number of years with the company, education, age, etc.)
    and the qualitative factor of belonging to "the right group."  A lot
    of conservative, old-line companies still hand out promotions based
    on this kind of tally sheet.  But things are changing - we're becoming
    a nation of service industries, and we've finally recognized the value
    in a diversity of "styles."
    
    Now on to the experience (non-DEC, I might add).  A male employee with
    @20 years in the business is looking forward to the next rung in the
    ladder.  He prides himself on his senior status - especially the
    independence that he has gained over the years.  Imagine his shock
    when he goes up against a woman who is younger, has 6 years in the
    business, and is less technical - and he doesn't get the job.  He
    added up the numbers and said "Hey! I've been here longer, I've been
    in the business longer, etc."  From his point of view, he has been
    discriminated against and will tell anyone about it.  
    
    Look a little deeper.  The next rung up was a supervisory position.
    Although the woman had been in the business 6 years, she brought 10
    years of experience in from another field - some of it supervisory.
    He sees his age as a positive factor - to the manager, it's irrelevant.
    How technical does this position need to be?  Either candidate has
    enough technical know-how to do the job.  What was the deciding factor
    in this case?  The male lacked the somewhat fuzzy "people skills" to
    do the job effectively.  He had let his sense of superiority and
    security insulate him, and it affected the way he dealt with people,
    especially the ones he saw as subordinate.  It took him about a year
    and a half to understand why he didn't "win."
    
    This reply isn't meant to deny that some males have been discriminated
    against.  All I'm trying to say is that many men, not having had
    much experience of or cultural reference points to discrimination,
    can have a had time distinguishing what it is or isn't.  For this
    reason, I tend to distrust a lot of the anecdotal cries from the
    wilderness.
    
    Ron

    
    One of the problems descibed in the basenote, but not limited to 
    women, is the advent of pressure groups that lobby only for their
    own special interest without regard for the damage done to the people 
    that must necessarily become the sacrificial victims of such demands.

    As a society, we become engaged in a type of tribal warfare, sacrificing
    the individuals rights of all for the short term upper hand of whichever
    pressure group is currently loudest in their affirmation that they have
    somehow collectively been wronged, and therefor must ought be collectively
    redressed by (any) group that has been deemed, by association of race, creed
    gender, national origin, or eye color to be the offending party.

    Such actions and demands, each time they are considered and appeased, only
    serve to erode and diminish not only our individual liberties, but the 
    actual concept that individual liberties are a valid and legitimate thing.

       Arpad, I'm just not seeing the wholesale discrimmination against
       white males that you do. It is going to be true however that as
       the workforce gathers in more women at high levels the competion
       is going to be tough. That means that for every job at every
       level there will be a 50% increase in the number of people trying
       for it because now the females are eligible. I have no idea what
       that means in terms of minorities as far as % goes. liesl

    
    
    Arpad  - Unless you can give us some clearer examples as to how
             you, someone you know or someone in the news has been
             the victim of reverse descrimination we can't possibly
             guess the true nature of your concern.  You say you are
             sensitive to this issue but why?  Simply being a white
             male shouldn't make you adopt a "so now there out to 
             make it tough for *me*" attitude.  I'm particularly
             interested in how white males have been descriminated 
             against by the draft.
    
             So far, IMO, it just sounds like the boy who cried wolf.
    
    Luis

    In a previous discussion that touched on this, there was a
    point brought up by (I think) Suzanne Conlon, one that was
    echoed in a way by Ron in .7, and that is "How can you tell
    that discimination is really going on?"
    
    When a white male loses a job to a woman or a minority, the
    first thing that comes to mind is, "She just got the job because
    she's a woman [or black, or Hispanic, or whatever]." There tends
    to be a subconscious resistance to the idea that the other person,
    if a woman or minority, may actually be more qualified for the
    job. If the same white male lost a job to another white male,
    the immediate assumption is that the hirer found the other person
    better qualified, so why can't this be the assumption if the
    other person *isn't* a white male?
    
    I don't think that anyone questions the idea that "reverse
    discrimination" happens, but I think that a lot of people (at
    least here) don't think it's nearly as prevalent as you (Arpad)
    seem to think it is or fear it will be.
    
    --- jerry

    <--(.10)
    
    Arpad, it was only when I read Otto's note (.8?) that I understood the
    context within which you wrote; until then I presumed you were writing
    from and about the US [yes it was an embarrassing mistake to make for
    someone tuned into international issues, but it taught me something]. 
    
    I can't speak to what's going on in Canada.  I would *guess*, based on
    what happened in the US right after the EEO/AA laws were passed, that
    there will indeed be a flurry of hiring/promoting any warm female or
    minority body so that companies can hope to disguise their history of
    never before even letting those classes of people have a look-in! 
    
    But later, when the cosmetics have been taken care of, I'm quite sure
    you'll find the same things happen in Canada as we found here: some
    changes, but business pretty much as usual.  The men who entered the
    career force in 1974 are much further along than the women who entered
    at the same time; in general, men have continued to do well and women
    have continued to do poorly (or at least less well) when all relevant
    factors are controlled for. 
                                                       
    As to whether AA is just, I would sorta disagree with Chelsea and argue
    that Yes it is fair, as much as possible.  There are inertial effects
    in social systems just as much as in physical systems, and the inertial
    effect of our pro-white-male social history is so large that no law
    applied to change its vector will have much effect very soon. Sure, if
    we persist and the force of change is large, eventially the social
    vector will change too...but it won't happen immediately any more than
    physical law will allow a large physical mass to be re-vectored
    immediately, and the force will have to be large for any change to
    happen at all!  That's what we're seeing with AA:  it looks like a
    large force to apply to the social vector, but the actual effect will
    be very small for a very long (in terms of individual careers) time. 
    
    						=maggie

There's a very interesting article in the latest Harvard Business
Review about how to help Women succed in being high level managers
especially around maternity issues [written by a woman whose company
consults on this issue].  I'm a lousy typer so if some sends me mail,
I'll photocopy it for you to type in.

john

    Gregg, thank you for writing that.  I approve of your attitude.
    (Big of me, what? ;-)
    
    John, I'll type it in.  I'm at DSG 1-1/C8.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: .15
    
    >Rather, it should be growth so that there are good jobs for everybody.
    
    Agreed.  The one argument I have for scrapping Affirmative Action
    is that it has fallen into the trap of most stopgap measures:  it's
    in danger of becoming a permanent measure.  As long as it addresses
    the symptom, it reduces the incentive to do the really hard job
    of addressing the root cause.
    
    >Stupidities like discrimination, go away when there is a higher
    >goal to be reached. You simply won't have time for them.  Smart
    >people know that discrimination is wrong AND counterproductive.
    
    This doesn't follow from your discussion of Japan's success, as
    Japan is notorious for discrimination, against women in particular.

    Arpad,
    
    I was interested that you made the draft one of your examples.
    It is my impression that the draft/military situation discriminates
    against women as much as it does men. The way the American services
    are set up, women cannot be involved in any combat situations, which
    in turn limits their abilites to be promoted. I had always assumed
    that the restriction of the draft to men and the limitation of
    the types of service women can do was the result of prejudice against
    women by senior male military types.
    
    Personally I think that selective service should apply equally to
    both sexes, and that it should involve both military and public
    service. I cannot speak for all women, but I would be really surprised
    if more than a very small percent were both for the draft and for
    having it be exclusively male. I don't believe it is the votes
    of women that keep the draft men only.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .20
    
    >4) Car insurance rates are much higher for men than they are for 
    >     women. Although this may change, it hasn't as of yet.
    
    Car insurance rates also differ across age groups.  Is this wrong
    as well?

    re .24
    
     So if you could prove that hispanics, or blacks or asians had 
    higher accident and casualty rates, it would be ok to charge them
    higher insurance premiums? Try getting that one by the ACLU.
    
    The Doctah

re: .24:
>    	Men and women have different accident and casualty rates.
>    The same holds true for each gender in different age groups.

A better predictor of accident rates is the individual's own driving
accident history.  A sliding scale of insurance discounts that is based
on the number of years since the last at-fault accident would give the
same results, without requiring any knowledge of gender or age.
(I.e., all 17 year-olds start at "maximum premium", five years later
the good drivers are paying "minimum premium".)

Martin.

    Re: .25
    
    Forget the buzzwords that attract the ACLU.  Insurance rates differ
    across age groups.  Is that wrong?

 Hello Ms Chelsea,

 It sounds very discriminatory to charge different rates according to
gender, age group or race. I am not convinced that it is wrong, though.
The only problem I can see with it is that it opens up a pandora's box
in that we have to find a place to draw the line. Otherwise, if they can
ask you questions about your job, and hobbies, they can probably find
a way to put each and every one of us in a high risk group. :-(

 Assuming that the insurance companies can show statistics to back up
their assertions regarding risk levels associated with each group, it
is difficult to find a stopping point where such pidgeon-holing must
stop. It seems to me that to be consistent about it, all manners of
pidgeon holing should be allowable if we allow any EXCEPT previous driving
record/claims filed. 

 I find that many women are happy that sexual discrimination occurs 
in insurance premiums. Older people are also happy that they don't have 
to subsidize daredevil's claims. It seems that in this instance discrimination
is ok. Or is it? What are your opinions on the subject of sexual and age
discrimination as it pertains to insurance premiums?

The Doctah

    Re: .29
    
    This is where we get into the area of discrimination in the
    non-perjorative sense.  Discrimination is the ability to recognize
    differences.  (Which means that discrimination is a prerequisite
    to Valuing Differences, since one cannot value what one cannot detect.)
    Car insurance rates are unfair because they treat people differently
    on the basis of what they *might* do rather than what they have
    done.  This means that I can beg the question of whether statistically
    valid differences in behavior justify different treatment, which
    is something I haven't made up my mind about.

    The problem with the insurance companies isn't that they recognize
    differences, it is that they define arbitrary categories and look for
    differences between those categories.  I'm sure they could recognize
    differences based on people's first names.  Maybe Mikes have a higher
    rate of claims than Nathaniels.  Would you like your insurance premiums
    to be based on such arbitrary statistics? 
    
    Basing rates solely upon the persons record is a fine idea.  I liked
    the sliding scale proposed earlier which started out high for new
    drivers or drivers with recent accidents and went down as a safe
    driving record was established.   

    
    Both Chelsea and Eagle have extremely valid points (especially
    since I LOATHE insurance comapanies - the only industry based
    on paying for something that *might* happen).
    
    Chelsea - I too don't think you should pay more because your
              particular little slot has historically had more
              accidents.
    
    Eagle -   I think you are absolutely right. These people who 
              always see fit to own the tallest glass and steel
              buildings in every city and who look for every
              way to squeeze more money out of everyone should
              use that money to renovate their entire system and
              the way they evaluate insurance premiums.
    
    Luis  who is tired of doling out money to these sharks in the
          state that has one of the highest rates of insurance to
          begin with.
    
          In the words of one of my good friends  "When the revolution
          comes they will be the first to hang"

 Re: Eagle's idea

 While in principle it sounds very good, the cost associated with such a
complete analysis of each  driver would drive _everybody's_ rates up
far beyond what they cost today. So they'd be assessed more fairly,
but they'd still be more. Is it worth it? By that I mean, if such a system 
were to be implemented, you could say to yourself "in relationship to
the next guy, my premiums are more fair." But they'd still be alot more
than what we pay now (already a crime). So we have to ask ourselves, is
it worth it to say to ourselves, "well that jerk pays more than me," when
in fact if we'd left well enough alone, we'd have paid less. It comes down
to how much people are willing to pay for the satisfaction of knowing that 
the real jerks have it worse than they do.

The  Doctah

    re .35 Not really, that's the whole idea behind the surcharge 
    system. 

    NOW is trying to get a new insurance rating system developed.
    Drivers would pay according to their miles travelled per year,
    *instead of* by their gender.  (I'm not talking about accident
    history or age here at all.)
    
    You see, men have more accidents because they travel more miles
    in which to have accidents.  (There, men, don't you feel better now?
    You've been getting a bum rap.)
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Luis, insurance agents will not be ~first to be hanged.~;
    they will be "the first against the wall."  :-)

    Now what about life insurance rates?  The difference is dependent
    on life span.  How can you treat people according to their record
    when dying is the action that establishes the record?

       I think we are hitting on the real problem here and that's just
       what is discrimination and is it ever good? Women and minorities
       have been deiscriminated against in the work place and men have
       been discriminated in the insurance area. I'm sure there are
       hundreds of examples of other areas.

       So what do we do? What is right? I remember Mike Z. stating , in
       a note about man/woman attraction, that he has every right to
       discriminate in his choice of a mate and I agree. I certainly
       wouldn't want to be told I had to marry someone just because they
       asked. This could be stretched to say we are right in being
       descriminating in who we chose as friends. But once we leave
       these completely personal areas the level of allowable
       discrimination becomes very vague.

       There is no way to not descriminate in a hiring situation. We
       choose one person over another for various reasons. The problem
       in the past was that those reasons were frequently no more than
       the fact that a person wasn't male or white. liesl

    re:.37
    
    Argh! There go my Hell Rides to Minneapolis. :-)
    
    re:.38
    
    Reminds me of a "Wizard of Id" strip:
    
    King: "What's 'life insurance'?"
    
    Insurance Salesman: "It's where we bet you that we can get more
    		money out of you than you can get out of us."
    
    King: "What if I die young?"
    
    Salesman: "You win."
    
    --- jerry

Steve raises an interesting point in 461.3:


================================================================================
WILKIE::KEITH "Real men double clutch"               31 lines  21-FEB-1989 08:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...

>    I and a fellow worker once had a dispute with an employer. We
>    were starving on $2.00 an hour. We took our dispute to the Federal
>    Labor dept in Manchester, NH. They told us point blank: " If you
>    were a .......... (you know all the descriptions) that we could
>    help you, the employere would be in trouble..., but because you
>    are ....... we cannot help you"


A coworker and friend of mine has bitter memories about his stint on the
management ladder. One incident: He was in some sort of management training
class, where they were laying out all the things a manager couldn't do to
minorities, and so on. He pointed out that the things they were discussing were
simply good management, and it was a shame that white, het males didn't deserve
good management.

So, I'm thinking, both cases say that minorities are demanding the kind of
fairness that should have existed all along, that should exist for everyone.
If that's true, we might be able to evolve into what we all claim we all want:
real equality. 
	Mez