🚀 go-pugleaf

In <6269cs$1j1@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
writes: 
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
><6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <623fk9$gf1@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
<jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>>writes:
>>>Why can't a women inherit from her father?  And why do you assume
that
>>any>specific man can?
>>
>>            -----------
>>            I was speaking of history, when women were not allowed
>>            to inherit.  It was very important that women married
>>            well, and not  for love.
>
>Oh, okay--I'll buy that.  So, you agree that they have the ability to
do so>today, right?  We can't base political agenda on the [distant]
past, can we?>I mean...I guess wer're gonna have to give every Indian a
free ride, since>it was our forefathers of 500 years past that claimed
this land for>themselves.

            ----------
            Sure;  I'm all for living in the present;  however, in 
            doing so, if you forget the past, you are doomed to relive
            it.  We have to learn from our mistakes.  Today women own
            property;  that isn't going to change.
            ---------------------------------------
>
>Also...let's not forget about the blacks.  My goodness...since my
great,>great, great-grandfather may have had slaves, by all
means--let's make>present-day people pay for it.  See what I'm getting
at?

            ---------
            I do indeed.  In the same sense that we can't compensate
            blacks for the social injustice they experienced, we also
            can not expect those same blacks to have the same family
            values as their Chinese peers.  The reason for that is
            because HISTORY does shape our evolution.  The same kinds
            of oppression that separated the slave from his child 
            also created fewer family values than the Chinese who
            worked together as families.
        --------------------------------------
>
>>>Women today have LOTS of opportunities, and choices.  There's no
more>>reason>for the 'women are a victim' sydrome.  This is the 90's
>>now--trying to>pretend that the women of today and the women of 60
>>years ago are the same>is ridiculous.
>
>>            -----------
>>            Trying to pretend that in the few short years since after
>>            WWII......
>
>WW-II...which we entered in 1941...which was 56 years ago...I'd say
that's>more than a few 'short' years ago.  That 2 complete generations
(to the age>of 30).  You can't even begin to compare the women of today
to the turmoil>of the people of 1940.

            ---------
            Can you expect women who have only been working en masse
            for 56 years to compare to men who have always worked
            outside the home?  Can you expecte women who were not
            (at one time) allowed to own property to men who always
            were?  I don't think so.  In the same breath, we can't
            simply redistribute the wealth;  that only leave equal
            opportunity.
            -----------------------
>
>> women can somehow magically catch up to male business own-
>>ership is what's ludicrous.
>
>Hmmmm.  I think you're asking the impossible.  But, not for the
reasons that>you would conjure.
>
>Probably the main reason is that there simply aren't as many working
women>and working men.  How can you expect to see the 'same amount' of
female>managers and such, as there are men, when there aren't even
enough working>women to equal that?  That doesn't make sense.

            ---------
            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.  I don't 
            expect to see the same number of female managers;  I
            do expect to address bias so that equal opportunity
            may apply to prevent a continuation of male only 
            ownership/employment. 
            ----------------
>
>To see the equal 'number' of women in the same jobs would mean that
the>majority of 'working women' would have to be
inleadership/managerment, etc.>How fair is THAT??  Why should the
majority of working women be in those positions?  Shouldn't it be fair?
 Let's say there's 10% of total working>men in managerment--then, to be
fair, there should be no more than 10% of>working women in
management...true?  Anything more, and THAT would be>unfair.

            =============
            Equal opportunity doesn' mean equal result.  If a woman
            doesn't have the merit (without bias), she doesn't deserve
            the job.  The real question remains the one of prevention
            of bias.
            ---------------------
>
>
>               Lefty
>