Conference turris::womannotes-v2

  Another two, inspired by the moment:

    [ ] Don't fly on *THAT* airline, they <acted_badly> to
        the labor union that used to represent their workers.

    [ ] (Sing this one) "Look for the union label, if you are
        buying..."

                                   Atlant

    All right, I'll bite.  
    
    I see only one item on your list that I can say without
    qualification is acceptable for me, and that's the and the
    personal ad for a Christian lady [no indication that the Christian
    requestor isn't also a lady, by the way!].  That's entirely a
    matter of personal preference.  
    
    I can probably accept the recommendation for a male urologist and
    a female gynecologist, though that puts a serious handicap on
    specialists of the wrong sex.  Still, choosing someone who's going
    to be handling one's private parts is such an intimate thing that
    I'll allow the expression of sexism it implies. 
    
    There might be circumstances that could make the "business
    location away from inner city" and the recommendation for a
    Hispanic florist justifiable.  The item about putting the school
    in a good neighborhood is classism at its worst -- but the better
    the neighborhood, the less likely it is to want a school built
    there :)
    
    --bonnie

I loved the Hispanic florist. If they come from a Hispanic art tradition, it
might be wonderful (lots of large flowers in bold colors).

The one I found humorous got me thinking; but I'm afraid I'm not making a lot
of progress on deciding...
	Mez

Is it really so bad to PREfer certain airlines, doctors, hairstylists,
sexual partners, furnace maintenance personnel, musicians, day care
centers, refrigerator types, beer, countries, etc. over others?

Is every preference a prejudice over something else?  If so, so what?
Are we supposed to eternally keep an open, carefree mind, despite past 
experiences and current preferences?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought life was about trial and error,
and learning from past mistakes, and trying to make ourselves as happy
as possible by not repeating those mistakes.  If I've had a negative
experience with a male gynecologist, I may choose not to go to another
male gynecologist and I'll hardly feel guilty about that.  If I get an
obscene phone call and decide to change my number to an unlisted phone
number, am I prejudicing against the world for not trusting anyone and 
everyone to have access to me via the telephone?

Come on, it's a little unrealistic to expect people to toss aside their
experiences, likes, dislikes, and preferences so they never slant their
decisions towards one side or the other.

Carla

>  Try some of these statements on for size and see if they are objec-
>  tionable to you.  Check as many as you desire. 

Alright...offensive:

    [X ] Apartment available -- No kids, no pets, no blacks.

    [X ] Help wanted: Gynecologist to join growing practice --
        men need not apply.

(I see this one as differing from the "urologist" question.  One refers to
hiring...the other refers to personal preference for a Dr.  I have been
in situations where I personally preer interaction with one type of person
or another, particluarly in such "intimate" situations.  But to not even
allow <name-a-group> to *apply* for a job is very different.)

    [X ] "AIDS, yeah, that's that disease that <homosexual_men>
        get, isn't it?"

    [X ] Private social club now has openings -- No Jews, please.

    [ ] I need recomendation for a male urologist.
(see above)

    [ ] Christian seeks upright lady of like mind for life
        glorifying God.

(I agree with Nancy here.  For seeking a partner, there is no such thing
as "prejudice".  One has no control over one's turn-on's, as irrational or
rational as they may be.  I often cringe but I don't even object to Single
White Male seeks Single White Female.  It's totally different if put in
the *second* person, instead of the first, along the lines of "He should be
dating a Christain woman" or "Why is she dating a white man"?  *That* is
highly offensive.)

    [?] I need a recommendation for a Hispanic florist.

(I can't even think of a reaction for this, because I can't *imagine* a
context in which it would be said...)

    [X ] Our religion doesn't allow us to associate with homosexuals.

    [? ] Request for proposals -- Large corporation seeks land or
        completed plant for new expansion.  Must not be located
        near inner city.

(Like Nancy said, we are assuming an awful lot if we jump to the conclusion
that this is classism.  There are many, many reasons for choice of location
of a business...)

    [X ] We're building the new school in a "good" neighborhood.

    [ ] I need a recommendation for a woman gynecologist.

    [X ] Help wanted: Pipefitter.  No women need apply.

    [X ] "Yeah, he was real good.  But I kinda wanted a, you know,
        (makes gesture with both hands) *WOMAN* as my secretary."

D!

    I suppose that a few of the items mentioned could be prejudicial,
    or discriminatory, but a few, such as the airline, the GYN, and
    some others, seem a matter of personal preference (as mentioned
    in the note before this).
    
    If one might say, "Male Gyn's are not as good as female gyn's",
    that would come across as far more prejudicial than, "I'm looking
    for a woman Gyn."  *I* happen to have a small hang up about going
    to male gyn's, but that isn't because I feel that they are somehow
    less of a doctor than a female gyn, it's just me.
    
    If one wants to get extremely nitpicky and literal, sure, all personal
    preferences (especially those made more or less without a wide sampling
    of alternatives), can be construed as being prejudiced ("I don't
    like them/that/the other because...."), but that's really reaching.
    
    And by the by, I do think that people who do not allow pets in housing
    rentals are being discriminatory, but unlike refusing rentals to
    children (which is against the law), it's okie to ASSUME the worst
    of people who have pets, I guess.  ;T  <--semi tongue in cheek
    
    ---kim

	 I find most of them to be prejudice, but they are awfully
	 leading phrases.  Had you altered them slightly, I would not
	 find most of them prejudice at all.


	 Prejudice is pre-judging.....judging a person/category/etc
	 without facts and experience.  I can safely say something
	 awful about XYZ airline because I've flown them many times
	 and all times have been awful.  I can say something
	 derogatory about LNM state/city/etc because I've lived there
	 for a long period of time.

	 The point I guess is that I don't feel I am being "prejudice"
	 if I make an informed, educated preference statement about a
	 group/place/etc.

	 Informed preference is wonderful, in fact, most of us live
	 our lives by it everyday.  It's when it's not "informed" that
	 I run into the problems.

	 So, I find the questions to be leading, because I could
	 reword them to not be prejudice and say almost the identical
	 things.

	 kath

Kath:

> So, I find the questions to be leading, because I could
> reword them to not be prejudice and say almost the identical
> things.

  Don't be so sure.  Some of the statements are blatant violations
  of the applicable anti-discrimination laws, and no matter how
  politely worded, are jus tas illegal.  Of course, if that manager
  were to tell the male secretarial candidate that he wasn't hired
  because his typing was too slow (rather than because he didn't have
  two other needed qualifications), that probably wouldn't be illegal.
  Just wrong.

                                   Atlant

>    <<< Note 956.8 by PROXY::SCHMIDT "Thinking globally, acting locally!" >>>


>  Don't be so sure.  Some of the statements are blatant violations
<  of the applicable anti-discrimination laws, and no matter how


	 My mistake, I said earlier in my reply that I meant "some of
	 the statements"....I didn't carry the "some" over to the
	 statement that you highlighted.

	 Sorry for the confusion.


	 kathy

> Don't be so sure.  Some of the statements are blatant violations
> of the applicable anti-discrimination laws, and no matter how
> politely worded, are jus tas illegal.  Of course, if that manager
> were to tell the male secretarial candidate that he wasn't hired
> because his typing was too slow (rather than because he didn't have
> two other needed qualifications), that probably wouldn't be illegal.
> Just wrong.                       =================================

  Actually, it would still be just as illegal.  But having provided a
  plausable excuse, the manager might get away with it.

                                   Atlant

Many people believe that a gay hairdresser is more up-to-date/
hip than a female hairdresser.

I am a licensed cosmetologist.  I do this on my spare time.
Many times I've seen bad cuts performed by fellow hairdressers
(be it male, female, or gay).  

In general, I feel that people who are prejudice or show preference
miss out on a lot of good opportunities.  I, personally, measure a
person on her/his own merits.

Michelle

<In general, I feel that people who are prejudice or show preference
<miss out on a lot of good opportunities.  I, personally, measure a
<person on her/his own merits.
    
    But this is a main point. We don't have the time to evaluate
    everyone on their personal merits. Are you willing to make an
    appointment with every doctor in town to decide who is best? If not,
    then how would you decide which name to pick?

    Where the line is drawn is when it concerns hiring and opportunity.
    It is illegal to deny someone access to medical school if they meet
    the requirements (which are a form of discrimination also - if you
    don't make the grades you don't get in). It is not illegal for you
    to choose the doctor you want to treat you.

    Prejudice and discrimanation are not wrong pre se. We do it every
    day. It would be inmpossible to function otherwise. What we have to
    be aware of is when our selection criteria are false or totally
    inadequate. We must teach our children to examine the myths of
    racism, sexism and classism (and whatever else) and understand what
    differences are real and what mere predjudice. liesl

    There is occasionally a political motivation to discriminate.
    
    If I am aware that <some_professional_community> has a history of <xxx>
    years of denying opportunity to <subgroup_n> and that although the laws
    have changed, said community resists change and continues to impose
    subtle barriers upon its new subgroup_n members, I may consciously
    decide to patronize only subgroup_n members, in order to send a
    financially successful consumer's message back to that community.
    
    I am philosophically a free-market capitalist.  Some would say that my
    decision in this fashion represents a distortion of the free market.  
    I reply that since my decision is predicated upon convincing that
    professional community to remove the subtle discriminatory barriers
    that prevent talented subgroup_n members from succeeding, I am in fact
    enhancing the long-term success of that community.  And as an educated
    consumer, it is perfectly logical for me to choose this criterion as a
    factor in my free-market decision-making.
    
    Thus- I may choose to patronize based upon superficially discriminatory
    criteria, and I make no apologies for it.  Being told that I am
    therefor a 'sexist' or some such gives me cause to laugh at my
    accuser's ignorance.
    
    DougO

>    Thus- I may choose to patronize based upon superficially discriminatory
>    criteria, and I make no apologies for it.  Being told that I am
>    therefor a 'sexist' or some such gives me cause to laugh at my
>    accuser's ignorance.

 I think that it is not only reasonable to do that, it is a great idea.

 I happen to belong to a fraternity. If I wanted to get service x, and there was
a brother who could provide such a service, all other things being equal he
would get first crack at my business. If I know of a friend of a friend, they
will also get first crack, all other things being equal. If I perceive an
injustice which may in some small way be mitigated by my patronization of a
certain business, I'll do it. These are all the same sort of thing, and do not
constitute the "bad" kind of discrimination.

 The Doctah

.11>Many people believe that a gay hairdresser is more up-to-date/
.11>hip than a female hairdresser.


    Can't this be either male or female? I know several female hairdressers
    who are out-of-the-closet so to speak. I don't think sexual preference
    makes one bit of difference as to how professional you are. What you do
    behind closed doors has no bearing on how good you can cut hair!!!

    I personally ALWAYS use a male hairdresser, mainly because a male cuts
    hair the way a man likes to see hair on a woman...  and since I usually
    like my hair to look nice for the guy I'm dating cuz he has to look at it
    all the time (lets face it, I only see it when I look in a mirror!), I
    value a male hairdressers' opinion.

.15>Can't this be either male or female? I know several female hairdressers
   >who are out-of-the-closet so to speak. I don't think sexual preference
   >makes one bit of difference as to how professional you are. What you do
   >behind closed doors has no bearing on how good you can cut hair!!!

    Gale:

    My point is "preferences".  I am saying some people just think that 
    a gay can do it better.  It has nothing to do with "his sexual 
    preference but with the clients "preference".  Do you follow?


.15>I personally ALWAYS use a male hairdresser, mainly because a male cuts
   >hair the way a man likes to see hair on a woman...  and since I usually
   >like my hair to look nice for the guy I'm dating cuz he has to look at it
   >all the time (lets face it, I only see it when I look in a mirror!), I
   >value a male hairdressers' opinion.

   I guess your hairdresser and boyfriend have the same taste for women.
   (Just kidding, no offense.)


		                  * * * * *

    
.12>But this is a main point. We don't have the time to evaluate
   >everyone on their personal merits. Are you willing to make an
   >appointment with every doctor in town to decide who is best? If not,
   >then how would you decide which name to pick?

   Your right Liesl. Sometimes we don't have time.  But when it's
   a situation where the decision will have a severe impact on my
   life I will "make time".  For example: I would definitely make 
   time to find out about a doctor's capabilities/professional 
   background if I thought I, or one of my children, had a serious 
   illness.  I would make no preference as to whether he was white, 
   black, male, female, etc.  I want to be able to trust this person 100%.

   Every situation is different and we all have different priorities.
   But I'm definitely not one to feel prejudice towards anything/anyone.  
   Being a minority has it's benefits - has added to my sensitivity
   towards different situations.


	Michelle

re: .14
    
    > I happen to belong to a fraternity. If I wanted to get service
    > x, and there was a brother who could provide such a service, all
    > other things being equal he would get first crack at my business.
    > If I know of a friend of a friend, they will also get first crack,
    > all other things being equal.
    
    This is what is commonly called the "Old boy's network," and it is
    a major factor in what has kept competent qualified women out of
    power for so long.  Men call on their frat brothers for jobs, for
    promotions, to be chairmen of select committees and to run for
    office, and they go on enforcing the shared values of frat
    brothers, leaving the rest of us out in the cold.
    
    --bonnie

    p.s. to .17 --
    
    That should read "women and minorities,"  since the white men who
    run the fraternities of the world don't commonly include men of
    color in their membership, either.  Only people like them, because
    that's their right, isn't it, to choose who their friends are, who
    they associate with?
    
    --bonnie

I think this is a very interesting question.  There seems to be a bit
of a gray area between where systematic oppression ends and personal
preference begins.

The question of personal preference is an interesting one.  What I see
happening is based on one's experience (or social conditioning) one
forms a preference where there is some idea about a group of people
that will affect one's decision making.  So, in a purely theoretical
example, say that I have found that most of the hardware engineers I
have met are reluctant to admit that their design have problems in them.
So now I have this idea that hardware engineers are reluctant to own
up to design problems.  Now, when I get into a situation with a
hardware engineer, there it is.  I have this idea that may cause me to
not see what is really happening in a given situation.

I think that the preferences based on social conditioning (someone
told you all X's are bad or whatever) is more commonly known as
prejudice whereas stuff that is really based on experience is called
preference.  I think we know of cases where this is confused, where
the experience is already pre-conditioned by the prejudice.  And the
preferences can become prejudice.

In any case, I think that I have observed for myself that the end
result is the same.  If I have a idea about something, I am now longer
100% free to really experience what is happening unless I am very
aware of what ideas I bring to a situation.  My ideal is to be 100%
open to experience without any preconcieved ideas about things.  I
think that is true freedom.  I also think it's a difficult task.
[Of course, it may be so difficult because I have ideas about how
difficult it is! ;-)]

A couple of examples from my own experience come to mind.  For the
last 5-10 ten years, most of my close friends have been women.  I have
some fixed ideas about men that cause a tendancy to make and value
women friends more.  I worry that in not being as open to men as I could be,
that I missing many potential friendships with men.  A nice thing that
has happened over the last year or so has been meeting some men I
could feel close to and could feel an emotional bond with.  Probally
this happened in spite of myself and with some awareness of my own
pre-concieved ideas.

It also happends all the time with individuals.  I get an idea or
judgement about someone and that becomes a filter with all my
interactions with that person.  So, let's say I have this idea that
person X is cold and not worth knowing.  Well, I am going to put all
my interactions with X through this filter, this idea I have about X.
Let's say X tries to reach out to me in some small way.  I stand a
good chance of missing what is happening and missing a wonderful
opportunity to respond to X in a totally fresh and new way.

What would it be like to be aware enough to respond to each moment in
a totally fresh and new way without bringing the baggage of our
preconcieved ideas to bear that limit our perception, our feeling, our
ideas about that given situation?  I'd like to find out!  Even with
our suffering and pain, there is so much to experince in each
moment!!!

john

    re: .17/.18
    
    Bonnie, the only solution is to set up the "new women's network!"
    
    One of my dearest friends opened her own florist shop in Hudson, NH. 
    She is a talented floral designer and a delightful person.  When she
    opened her shop, I took a ton of business cards and advertisements and
    gave them to all my friends and colleagues (men and women!).  Out of
    loyalty to *me*, my friends (and some colleagues) started ordering
    flowers from her.  Since she is a very talented designer, many have
    become regular customers who also "toot her horn."
    
    In turn, she tries to hook up with other small-business women and
    display their ads/business cards in her shop.  If it works for the
    "boys," it will work for the women.
    
    As for the prejudice/preference argument, I agree with so many others. 
    Some statements are prejudicial while others are preferential.  To
    prefer a doctor of one sex may well be preferential (it *can* be
    prejudicial - there are still people who won't see a woman doctor
    strictly because she's a woman).  Other statements are discriminatory,
    which is *not necessarily* a negative word!  If you discriminate based
    on individual merit (or to make a statement as .13(?) declared), that
    is not bad.  To discriminate categorically (against a minority group,
    religion, etc.) *is* bad/prejudice.
    
    Susan

    How does this sound for a definition:
    
    
    If you're making biased choices as an "private citizen", with your
    personal money and power, that's preference.
    
    If you're making biased choices as an agent of some organisation, with
    the money and power belonging to that organisation, it's unfair
    discrimination.
    
       						=maggie
    
    

    Thank you Maggie, I was trying to think of how to draw the line
    between businesses and individuals, since it seems private citizens
    should be able to "discriminate" in their purchasing decisions.
    Maybe we could use tax status as an indicator.
    	Linda

     Well, maggie, that works up to a point, but we have to define "agent". 
    
     For example, I have an appartment to rent, or half of a duplex which I
    own (hypothetical situation, gang, so don't come looking for
    accomodation).
    
     If I choose to restrict possible tenants to white, anglo-saxon,
    southern baptist, software engineer, wargaming, thespian men, am I
    exhibiting "personal preference" or "prejudice"???
    
     					Nigel

    Nice question, Nigel.  To me, the half-of-a-duplex case at least looks
    like preference.   But as in the case of the apartment, if you're
    getting business-related advantages out of the duplex, it looks like
    you're effectively an agent albeit of a very small :-) organisation.
    
    						=maggie

Pretty good definition, Maggie, but not always easy to apply in borderline
cases.  

Similar to Nigel's hypothetical situation...what does "organization" mean?
Clearly, if I am, say, the social coordinator for the Rotary club, hiring
a caterer for a function, I shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex,
race, etc, etc.  But how big does the organization have to be?  What if
it's the local Scuba club?  What if it's The Sunday Bunch Gang (a group
of about 10 close friends with whom I go out to Brunch every Sunday)?

I think, though, that as a rule-of-thumb, that would work in most cases.
However, it doesn't stop me from feeling hurt/disgusted/angry/superior
if I hear an *individual* makes statements like "I would never go to a
woman doctor, women should be nurses" or some such.  It's their right,
but I would still feel that their priorities were in need of (forcible? :-)
rearranging.

D!

    
    re .23, .24, Nigel's situation:
    
    I believe the law (at least in Mass) is clear on this.  If the
    owner has to live with, or in the same building, as the tenant
    he or she is choosing, then the discrimination laws don't apply.
    

    
    Well, D, what about The Sunday Bunch Gang?  Propose a realistic
    scenario and let's see if the proposed definition will handle it in a
    good way.                                          
    
    To take a quick hack at definition, I'd propose that "an organisation"
    is any social (as opposed to physical, metaphysical, etc) entity that
    seems to be somewhat independent of the identity of its members and
    agents.  
    
    In the case of Nigel's duplex, if he's just getting some money for the
    use of it and doesn't do all the business stuff around depreciation and
    so forth, then to me that's just Nigel.  But once he starts operating
    it as "a business" then it's not just Nigel anymore and in effect he's
    become the agent of this separate entity that he's created.
    
    						=maggie

>    I believe the law (at least in Mass) is clear on this.  If the
>    owner has to live with, or in the same building, as the tenant
>    he or she is choosing, then the discrimination laws don't apply.
    
There was a big stink on soc.motss (a gay usenet newsgroup) a month
or two ago about a Lesbian woman who was not accepted as a roommate
with two straight women because of her preferences.  She sued and
won.  Not sure of the details, but apparantly not all states have this
law.

I personally feel when you actually have to share living quarters with
someone, it's a clear case of preference and not discrimination.  (Another
example of a time when I am disgusted by someone's prejudical attitudes
but will support their right to make decisions based on them.)

D!

    I think it's wrong in a moral way for any individual to limit his
    or her choices of anything based on the criteria of who the owners
    of the business ARE rather than what they DO.  If XYZ airline gave
    me bad service, that's what they DO and I'm justified in avoiding
    them.  If ABC oil company (not Exxon) is letting gas leak from
    their storage tanks at a facility in rural Montana, and that
    offends me, I'm justified in not buying ABC's products and urging
    others not to buy them.  If I'm looking for a caterer for a
    special dinner and I pick a business owned by people like me,
    without checking about whether they'll do a good job, that's
    wrong.  
    
    Note that I'm not saying there should be any kind of law against
    this, or that the person who believes differently doesn't have the
    right to patronize whoever s/he wants to, just that I consider it
    morally wrong and offensive. 
    
    --bonnie

Bonnie,

I have two serious problems with your argument in .29.

First, it seems like an unreasonable infringment on my personal life and 
relationships.  As you have stated it, if I have a friend, I can invite her
to dinner; I can give her money if she needs it; but if she is an auto 
mechanic, and my car needs work, it is *morally wrong* of me to take my
car to her instead of to the garage down the road that might to a better
job at lower prices.

Second, your "is"/"does" distinction seems contrived to me.  Simply, I cannot
see a line of argument that justifies discriminating in my business decisions
on the basis of  non-business-related *actions*, but not on the basis of simple
preference.  That is, I think that, for consistency, my discrimination in
business dealings would have to be either completely free, or limited strictly 
to business  concerns -- price, performance, quality -- and not to other, 
incidental aspects of the business, including the race of the owners and
the company's labor-relations policies.

-----------

Maggie's distinction is essentially the one that I would make, although I would
draw the line between "individual" and "organization" a little differently than
she does.  As long as I am acting strictly on my own behalf (even though I may
have turned myself into a corporation so I can depreciate the paving in my
driveway), I am morally justified in making decisions for whatever specious
reasons I choose.  As soon as I am acting on behalf of others (be they the 
scuba club, or DEC, or the United States Government), I am obliged to set
aside my personal preferences and objectively.

	-Neil

    Hmmm...that's interesting, Neil.  What of the case where an individual
    owns most of the reasonably-priced housing in an area (not an
    implausible scenario at all)?  In theory he's acting on his "own
    behalf" insofar as he personally owns the property.  Should he be
    allowed to embody his prejudices in his rental dealings?
    
    						=maggie

    re: .30
    
    Neil, I am not in the least challenging your RIGHT to use whatever
    criteria you feel comfortable with in choosing what businesses you
    wish to patronize.  The one thing I don't have is the right to
    impose my moral standards on you!  
    
    I also think I'd make an exception for taking trade to people who
    are one's own personal friends.  One of life's more difficult
    dilemmas is what to do when you have a friend in a particular
    trade (she makes draperies) who isn't very good, when they expect
    you to call on them and you wouldn't let her near your curtains 
    . . . but I digress. 
    
    What bothers me is as I said earlier -- that's how the old-boys
    network works.  There is nothing formal or illegal about taking
    one's trade to one's frat brothers, or prefering graduates of
    one's own university for job openings.  People just prefer to be
    around people they know, or who they're pretty sure are like them. 
    
    And when the people doing the preferring are in the position of
    power, they're effectively locking out the people who aren't in
    power.  If all the women got together and preferred women the same
    way white men in power have always preferred each other, the men
    would be just as effectively locked out and I'd consider it just
    as immoral.
    
    When you're running a business, what justification do you have for
    using anyone other than the contractor who will give you the
    price, service, delivery time, and so on that you need?  Is it
    good business to use an inefficient delivery service, or a
    catering service that has a poor cook, just because you went to
    school with the owners?  Should I pay lots of money for poorly
    made curtains because this woman has been a friend of mine for
    years and she needs the money and women have trouble making it in
    business so women should support other women?
    
    --bonnie

    Bonnie, how do you make the choice where the competitors appear to
    offer equal value for money?  I agree that there's something at least a
    bit shaky about making a relationship qualification more important than
    a professional one, but what when the only evident difference is the
    relationship one?
    
    						=maggie

    Flip a coin?  Use recommendations?  Consult a medium?
    
    No, seriously, if it's down to a choice among qualified
    businesses, I don't have any problem with using the relationship,
    or the owner's race, or the color of the company van, or whatever,
    to choose.  It's only when it's used before the qualifications are
    assessed that I consider it wrong.
    
    And I don't suppose my own behavior always follows through on my
    principles, either . . . unreasonable prejudices and assumptions
    are hiding everywhere.
    
    --bonnie

    There's also pressure from advertising to put other reasons before 
    business reasons when looking for suppliers of goods or services.
    These are usually in the form of buy American (put your own country
    here) or support your local business.  This is especially true in
    government purchasing.
                                      
    Are these a form of prejudice or is it just good business sense to 
    support your community (however large that is defined)?  
    

 Scenario:

 A group of women engineers have started a professional group to further
their careers. They meet on the last thursday of every month at a restaurant
to discuss group business and to socialize. The woman who heads the committee
responsible for booking the accommodations for the group consistently patronizes
the two or three businesses owned or managed by women or a certain class of
minorities (since she is also a minority). She feels that she is justified in
using the monetary power of the club to assist other women and minorities in
"getting ahead." There are many other establishments that could provide the
accomodations equally well in the same geographic area. But she chooses to
patronize her set of establishments; and the services and accomodations have
always been satisfactory.

 Is there anything wrong with this? Say she belonged to a sorority, and chooses
to patronize an establishment owned by one of her sisters, is that ok? 

 I personally don't have any problem with this.

 The Doctah

    There's a marvelous book by Robert M. Bramson, PhD, called "Coping With
    Difficult People."  From Chapter 9:
    
    "Labelling Can Help.
    
         "Most people feel an inner resistance to the idea of categorizing
    people, putting them in boxes labeled "Difficult People," "Indecisive,"
    "Complainer," or whatever.  Human beings are immensely complex and
    adaptable, and no one can be completely reduced to any category.  But
    that doesn't mean that there aren't some very practical reasons for
    categorizing people.  One of these is that labeling people often helps
    you feel "distanced" from them, especially if they're people with whom
    you're very involved.
         "It allows you to see their behavior as happening outside of
    yourself and your personal responses....
         "... It is important, however, that you see the labels and the
    behavior patterns as *prototypes* rather than *stereotypes*.  Using
    "Complainer" as a stereotype label would imply that all Complainers are
    alike, a statement far from the truth.  What we mean by that label is
    rather that all Complainers show certain behaviors in common, but in
    most other ways they are quite different."
    
    I disagree with Dr. Bransom on one point.  I think that many people
    resist the idea of consciously categorizing people, but they do it
    quite automatically on a conscious level.  Rather than dealing with
    hundreds or thousands of complex individuals, we start out dealing with
    a smaller number of "types."  Most people are able to shift their focus
    from "type" to "individual" fairly quickly when faced with an actual
    individual with whom they must interact.

    re: .36
    
    I don't see anything wrong with it, either, as long as "the service and
    accommodations have always been satisfactory."  There may come a time
    when they are bored by the location, though. ;-)
    
    As I said before, I see nothing wrong with helping a budding business
    get established (pun on my friend's floral business intended!), as long
    as they perform quality work/service.
    
    If the scenario you had presented were different, I might disagree. 
    The following scenario has happened (and will probably continue to
    happen), and I don't think it's right:
    
    Ms. X heads an engineering mentoring group.  Each month they meet and
    her sister's restaurant.  Ms. X has a standing reservation for the last
    Thursday of each month.  Her sister's a lousy restaurateur!  None of
    the other members can stand the place, but Ms. X is in a powerful
    position, has offered great leadership and career assistance, and
    hasn't taken any of the numerous "hints" dropped about restaurant
    selection.
    
    Naturally, the "answer" is that these people should assert themselves
    and demand a new location.  But many times, people (male and female)
    just ignore the problem, since the benefits seem to tip the scales.
    
    Ahh, nepotism...
    
    Susan

>    The following scenario has happened (and will probably continue to
>    happen), and I don't think it's right:

 I agree completely. But what to do about it?

 The Doctah

RE: .21> ..there's not enough time...
    .21> What we have to be aware of is when our selection criteria are false
    .21> or totally inadequate..        ----     --------- -------- ---------
    
PREJUDICE AS FALSE PERCEPTION:   (From ISBN:0-442-23460-0 page 54)
 Sometimes prejudice is the result of a false perception of a <group> as
learned from the various socializing agents to which children and youth are
exposed. It is probable that most dominant-status persons who consciously
or unconsciously take the advantage over XYZ-group do so simply as a result of
behaving in a *customary way..
False perceptions are enhanced by STEREOTYPES. A stereotype is an oversimplified
generalization that emphasizes only selected qualities of another group.
It tends to evoke a generalized reaction to any member of that group. To some
extent stereotypes *arise out of a tendency to SAVE TIME and EFFORT. As one
author points out, "It is much easier to have a definite opinion as to the type
of creatures women are, and behave accordingly than, to analyze and study each
woman anew."  What is signigifant in a stereotype of a <group> is that the sel-
-ected qualities tend to be those that emphasize differences from the dominants
thus serving as a "reason" for differential treatment. The psuedo-intellectual
assumption is that these qualities are innate and therefore the biased 
treatment of <group XYZ> is deserved.  
Since newspapers and magazines and other forms of mass communication depend
on popular approval for their sales, they often serve as reinforcing agents in
the maintenance and *continuance of such generalized popular stereotypes. 

PREJUDICE AS PERSONALITY STRUCTURE:
   In general, as far it is known from research, one can identify this need for
status and dominance with AN INSECURE PERSON who has been brought up by very
dominating adults. ( Pass the baton syndrome, or let the scatos roll down !)
(A profile of someone who should have been known to the world as:
  A. Schicklgruber on page 388 of ISBN 0-201-00179-9 is a classic example)
No community problems may occur if there are other outlets for his need to feel
superordinate over others - if for example, the person with local cultural 
approval, could turn to dominate his children, servants or maids. When external
circumstances challenge his way of functioning, his livelihood, his personal
security, he may then need to lay blame for  this at the door of members of
the society whom he believes are of lesser worth. 
This is the person whose prejudices grow out of his personal PERSONALITY NEEDS. 
His prejudices develop with regard to any given important social stereotype that
impinges on his enviroment. (Relative to where he is) It may be the "locals"
of colonial Indonesia, or the Francos of Canada, the "coloreds" of R.S.A or
the "Oriental immigrants" in the Pacific regions, or the "'Harijans" of India,
the Gypsies in Romania, the Jews in Nazi Germany, or Polynesians in N/Zealand.
Some societies seem to produce fewer of this type of personality, while other
societies seem to produce fewer of this type of prejudicial personality.
[Pages 54/55  - Gladys Meyer, Colmbia Univ, and Charles Marden, Rutgers Uviv.]

  
  Another way a person reveals prejudice is by demanding a higher standard
of performance from certain ones, THOUGH giving them *less recognition. And if
such ones "fail"  he might be prone to attribute the "failure" to reasons of
ethnicity/gender/race - region/section/location (and you name it). OR...  
He may condemn in one group/race/region conduct that he tolerates in his
own.  Yet such a person will fiercely deny having any prejudices - due to
self-deception. And if given a forum will concoct brilliant rationalizations
to explain "things".         
                          
PREJUDICE OR PREFERENCE:   
MONTREAL - When Yves Berube returned to his hometown (Montreal, Quebec) with
a doctorate from MIT, he was eager to make his mark in business. He tried a
dozen corporations for jobs but got nowhere. With some companies, he couldn't
even get an interview. The reason: "My <heritage> name" he says, "there was no
room for a Francophone" The year was 1966 and anglo-Canadians had a strong grip
on top management of most large corporations. 
    [Originally reported  on page A-14 of Oct.26 Sunday Boston Globe 1986]
A Ph.D in Chemical Engineering from MIT - what else do YOU want ? 
A SCENARIO FOR 60 MINS:     (?) 
"Well Y. Berube, listen here, the reason why we can't use you has nothing to
do with U as a person. We are not anti-Francos, but we feel that you might 
not fit in here.  Oh yes, we know you got your degrees from English speaking
US schools but, you sure don't sound like our frat brother Peter Jennings
(the anglo-Canadian). And don't even think this has to do with discrimination
or some silly prejudices, we admire you people for your courage it's just that
you may have some problems adjusting to our culture since you grew up in a
"different" culture even though you were born in this country..." Mais Oui ! 

Another person's observation:
" Isn't it intriguing that Ted Koppel is praised by the t.v. critics as 
`self-confident' and `aggressive' while I'am put down as `arrogant' and
`confrontational'? ...That the critics go: `Peter Jennings is terrific and
`Yeah, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather's so strong and assertive and passionate on
issues.' But ..`That arrogant S.O.B. Gumbel: Who The Hell Does He Think He Is?
They think that becuase I'am black I have to be a little more gracious, more
grateful. They would love me to say. *Boy geez, thank you. Aren't I lucky, 
a little guy like me, to be given this chance?* I really think that's what these
%&*%#people  want me to say.."  [ Bryant Gumbel host of NBC's Today Show ] 

Or take another example. Someone from Scotland (Gt.Bt.) had observed that
when the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reports  events, they use
"British, Scottish, English - differently. 
When a Scottish person does something GOOD - the BBC reporters refer to the
individual as British ( meaning ALL of us). When another British person does
something BAD who happens to be Scottish the BBC reporters will say "John Doe"
the Scotsman/Scottish. When a person who happens to be English does something 
bad the reporters refer to the individual as British (we are all imperfect).
BUT if someone does something good who happens to be English then the BBC 
reporters refer to the individual as ENGLISH - (meaning not just a British but
an ANGLO-British)

Or take another example - It is very fashionable in some quarters to bash 
<group XYZ> becuase everyone else does it. But it is a No No to bash the
Anglo-British, becuase they are not supposed to be bashed.  One can bash
<group XYZ>  all they want but the Anglo-British sacred cows should never
be touched.  Also when the anglo-British are mentioned non-positively
all the sons and friends of the Anglos arise out of the trenches to
"explain, analyze, and give the other side of the facts.." What about facts
concerning <group XYZ the Francos> ?

Or another example - Barbara Walters (an NBC journalist? ) is perceived by some
as being "pushy, aggressive, ***chy" -> translates into a non-positive category.
But a male being aggressive, assertive and pushy just like Barbara  is 
automatically put in a positive category. ( C'est what ? Prejudice or not ? 

Another example. If a member from group TGX does somethingP "Oh wao it's cute,
...smart, great !" (You name the accolades.)
If a member from group XGT does the same thing or better - "That's Nothing,
    ..I knew that", or "clever", "educated", "we all know that" No accolades -?  
PREJUDICE or PREFERENCE - not simple eh ?