🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
<629h8q$ev6@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
>            I don't agree. Most humans use what they've learned from
>            the past, and integrate that with new information.  At
>            least that's been my experience.  Calling something a
>            "political reason" is nothing more than expressing a
>            philosophy, just like we humans have always done.

No, I can't agree with that.  Through my experience, I have found that, more
and more daily, people make excuses and decisions based on a political
agenda.  They no longer care about anything except what is "...what I
deserve because I am a [woman][black][man][minority][sick of society][a
boisterous person].  I really don't think people 'think' anymore.

>>Who is 'they?'  I seriously doubt there are too many people living
>today>that were 'injusticed' into slavery.  What are we talking about?
>
>            ----------
>            We are speaking of the generations of separation
>            of black families because of slavery; would you
>            expect that those who are told to live without
>            family for generations, recover overnight.

Not at all.  But lets keep a grip on reality here...I never got the chance
to be 'close' with my great, great grand-father....and i seriously doubt
that my family is "suffering" because of it.  Are you suggesting that some
family is 'suffering' because somebody (several hundred) years ago was
seperated from his wife?

>            If you can read what I've said, you'll see that
>            I've not asked for any compensation.

What exactly are you saying, then?

>            That sounds like the doom and gloom scenerios offered
>            by militia-unibomber types.

Well, I appreciate you lumping me into that same pile.  I don't think I've
generalized and placed you into any stereo-types...I would appreciate the
same consideration.

>            It's a screed and not an
>            argument.  Society always has problems;  lumping them
>            all together (AS YOU SEE IT) and saying "aint it
>            awful" doesn't accomplish anything.

Hmmm...it IS an arguement...and only the ingnorant would say otherwise.
(sorry if that offends.)  There have been SEVERAL hundred publications and
writings on this subject...I can get you some links to them if you wish.
It's not the way that I see it...it's the way that a LOT of people see
it...and that list is growing more and more daily.

>>>            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.

>            Well, that's to be expected; you and I would have different
>            experiences in that since we don't travel in the same
>            circles.

That is true.  I'll try to find out the true numbers for our discussion.

>>Equal opportunity...I have to play 'the bad guy' on this one.  Do you,
>>honestly, seek "equal opportunity," or do you seek "special rights?"
>>Should a man get paid leave/vacation time to spend the first 6 weeks
>with>his newborne?

>            That would depend upon the company, would it not?

No...it shouldn't.  If an agency or organization is going to offer that to
the woman, then it should equally be offered to the father.

>            I would support such a plan.

I am very glad to hear that.

>I think he should, if the woman does.  Should a woman have to
>>register for a military draft?  I think she should, since the man
>does.
>
>            --------
>            So do I.  Men are being discriminated against and
>            should fight for their equal rights.

Hmmm...refreshing to hear.

>>(And, as such, there can be no excuses like, "I can't go to the
>military...I>just had a baby," or "I can't go...I'm pregnant."  Or, "I
>can't go...I don't>want to."  A man can't use any of these excuses...I
>would LOVE to stay home>with my newborne, but if I'm called, I have a
>job to do.

>        I would agree with you that where men and women are similarly
>        situated they should be treated the same.  Gestation is simply
>        NOT a similar situation.  Pregnancy isn't an excuse; it's
>        a fact of life.

Indeed.  But let me ask you this--let's say I'm a co-worker...is it fair
that you get 'knocked up,' and get a PAID ABSENSE from work for simply being
pregnant and having a kid, when I can't possibly get the same benefit?  Why
on earth should I have to "cover your work" for you because you're out
reproducing?  I didn't get you pregnant..I haven't forced you into a
pregnancy...I haven't decided to have kids...YOU have.  Why does the rest of
you shop/office have to PAY for what you've decided?

>>>           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.
>>
>>You're right...I agree.  And THAT is where the problem is.  Why are
>>standards lowered for the woman?  It's called "gender norming," and
>"racial>norming," and that is exactly the root of the problem.  In
>today's day and>age, you are not allowed to say that somebody
>"...doesn't have the merit.">That, in itself, is a bias these days and
>will cost you.

>            Actually including women in the standards is part of
>            getting rid of bias against women.

Wholey incorrect!  Having somebody meet the 'standard'...whether it's a man
or a woman should not matter--THAT is the way to get rid of bias...against
EVERYBODY!  Meet the standard...don't discriminate against others because
somebody can't meet the preset standard.

In my line of work, there is (unfortunately) a LOT of bias against
women...because they don't have to meet the same standard that men do...it
is "gender normed."  There is a LOT of disgust towards them because of it.
The key to eliminating the bias is to eliminate the double-standard.

jrdyson@pipeline.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson