Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Re: .0
    
    >Feminists want laws to protect *their* rights, and to hell with
    >anyone elses.
    
    Unfair and untrue, I believe, unless you're using a much stricter
    definition of "feminist" than I use.  In fact, I believe I've seen
    debate on the fact that various movements lend support to each other.
    After all, they have many goals in common; fighting for your own
    rights can make you more aware of other people fighting for the
    same thing.
    
    >Is everybody short sighted that we can only deal with the issues
    >which affect us personally?
    
    Demonstrably not.  Heterosexuals campaign for gay rights.  Men campaign
    for women's rights.  Whites campaign for the rights of racial
    minorities.  (And so on ....)
    
    >Can't we empathize with the people on the other side and give them
    >something in return, even if it is only the emotional gift of letting
    >them know that they've 'Done The Right Thing'? 
    
    I don't understand what you're getting at.  Certainly, understanding
    the "other side" is important, if only for the practical reason
    of determining which tactics/arguments will be most effective. 
    As far as giving something in return, well, if you're deprived of
    your rights, you don't owe anybody anything for giving you what's
    yours to begin with.  As far as the satisfaction of telling them
    that they've "Done The Right Thing," I'm not sure I know what you
    mean.  But if "the other side" truly believed that this was "The
    Right Thing" they would have done it already, oui?
    
    >but the oppressors need to be freed from their role of oppressor.
    
    I've gotten a sense of this.  As long as things are seen in terms
    of "us vs. them," the opposing sides cannot cooperate in acheiving
    a solution.

    	I see .0 as being correct in his view and .1 immediately fell
    into the trap and defended "feminists" as being able to see others'
    problems etc. That's exactly what is alluded to in .0. As long as
    the "special interests" of group A are met, it gets justified in
    the minds of that group as good because they receive the largest
    benefits.
    	I don't want to go down a rat hole here, but I believe special
    interest groups are exactly what they are called. They are a group
    of people or companies who lobby for what they WANT, not necessarily
    need, and they really don't care how they get it or who else suffers
    for their wants.
    	I don't care if it's Greenpeace, Disable American Vets, the
    Am. Dairy Assoc., or IBM, they all have a me, me, me attitude and
    not a we, we, we mentality.
    
    Ken     
    

    as far as note .3 goes, you went down a very deep rat hole when
    you started knocking the DAV, I am one.  Perhaps a piece of metal
    hitting your spine at very high speed would qualify you for being
    in the DAV as I do.  I can say one thing, It's people like those
    in the DAV who protect you right (?) to critize that which you do
    not agree with.  Not all groups begin with "me me me".  The DAV
    members started out with "us us us".  You can continue to critize
    anything you wish and those protecting your right to critize will
    be future members of the DAV, unfortunately.
    

    This topic sort of touches on something that has been on my mind.
    
    I'm concerned about the continuing fragmentation of society.
    It seems as if as time goes on we spend more and more time
    identifying and stressing our differences and less time recognizing
    and acknowledging our commonalities. I worry that this atmosphere
    (which I feel is exasperated by the media) serves only to encourage
    confrontation and discourages people from working together
    to arrive at a common ground conducive to agreement.
    
    							Hank
      

    Groups form to share and protect common interests and to strive
    for common goals. If Group A wants to protect the rose gardens from
    being destroyed and Group B has hayfever and an interest in developing
    the garden into a gym because Group C loves excercise, then sides
    will begin to form naturally.                       
    
    I don't believe that any of the authors of the preceeding notes
    were attempting to "knock" or "demean" any special group they
    mentioned, but were using them as examples only. Mothers Against
    Drunk Driving are interested in stiffer penalties for DWI, but they
    wouldn't necessarily go out and lobby for access into the courthouse
    for the handicapable.                       
    
                                     -sunny-

    I agree that special interest groups often do what I see as
    going too far, and often seem to not see beyond the ends of
    their noses.  It is unfortunate that some SIGs seem to be interested
    only in lining the pockets of those whose pockets don't need more
    lining.
    
    BUT
    
    I think that SIGs often serve to remind us of things we'd otherwise
    refuse to consider.  The DAV are a good example - many folks would like
    to forget the veterens, especially the 'Nam vets, who are still
    suffering because they went to war for their nation.  Many people
    would like to forget the needs of the handicapped, since it costs
    extra money to put ramps and special bathrooms into buildings. 
    Etc.  I think the SIGs often serve an important function - to remind
    us that there are others around with critical needs.
    
    --Louise

    Sorta related : special interest crusades.
    
    By this I mean those intensely newsworthy causes : over the past
    couple of years, I remember ozone, acid rain, disinvestment, radon, 
    and those silly whales in the Arctic ice. Now, I'm sure these are
    all very worthwhile causes, but what's intriguing is their brief
    moment in public attention. 
    
    Speaking of special interest crusades, the battle continues against
    newly discovered forms of discrimination. A couple of
    years ago, I heard the word "species-ism", an extension of sexism and 
    racism, I imagine. Recently I saw a listing for a ski class, which
    went : Learn to ski ... from patient, non-sexist, non-adultist
    instructors. 
    
    Non-adultist ?? Anyone know what that means ?
    
    / Jon 

    My *guess* is that "non-adultist" means that the class is open
    to children....but why didn't they say "children welcome"?
    
    I'm personally convinced that the furor over radon was concocted
    by the manufacturers of radon test kits, for the purpose of making
    money.

    Re: .2
    
    >defended "feminists" as being able to see others' problems etc.
    >That's exactly what is alluded to in .0. As long as the "special
    >interests" of group A are met, it gets justified in the minds of
    >that group as good because they receive the largest benefits.
    
    I'm afraid I don't see the connection between defending feminists
    as being not completely self-centered and special interest groups
    justifying that they're good because they're treated better than
    anyone else.  In fact, I'm not sure I agree that special interest
    groups *are* treated better than anyone else.  Some are, I suppose,
    but only those who have been successful in their quests.  The ones
    that are still working toward their goals are not being treated
    better, which is exactly why they're still working.
    
    >they really don't care how they get it or who else suffers for
    >their wants.
    
    I objected to this before; I continue to object.  I refuse to accept
    gross generalizations like this and I'm not in the mood to let them
    pass unchallenged.  They only weaken your argument.  I'm much less
    inclined to agree with someone who won't take the time to develop
    a more balanced, accurate view.
    
    Of course special interest groups are exactly what they're called.
    Some do harm, some do good, depending on what they want and how
    they go about getting it.  The idea of working for the common good
    is awfully difficult to implement.  That was the idea when the American
    government first started (see Washington's _Farewell Address_ for
    his opinions of 'factions') but it didn't happen even back then.
    Now I think the country is just too large and too diverse to have
    anything meaningful as a 'common good.'
    
    One of the books that we used in my class on the Revolution was
    called _The Minutemen of Concord_, which examined the little town
    of Concord, MA before, during and after the Revolution.  The town
    had two main sections:  Concord and an area to the west, across the
    creek, that was included in the Concord jurisdiction.  The western
    residents paid all the same taxes as the main town residents, even
    though they rarely made it into town to use the facilities.  They
    were taxed for the upkeep of the church, but they frequently couldn't
    attend because they couldn't cross the creek.  They petitioned for
    a bridge to be built over the creek so they could get to church.
    Nope, said the town, it's not for the common good.  Nor were they
    allowed to pay less in taxes; that wasn't for the common good either.
    Did the westerners not have a valid complaint?  Were they wrong
    or selfish in their request?  Should they not have made their request?
    
    The common good is merely a special interest with a majority instead
    of a minority.  The common good denies special interests because
    they don't satisfy the needs or wants of the common good.  It's
    still a "we, we, we" thing -- it's just that the "we" is larger.
    Just as the special interest group can be a way to gain special
    treatment or advantages, the 'common good' can be a way to deny
    fair treatment to the minority.

    This note has bothered me ever since it was first entered. 
    
    The reason is that, most people do not have the resources either
    financial, physical or emotional to be able to be 'up' or 'on'
    for *all* causes. So each of us puts our resources where we see
    the need, and where our hearts lie. I think this is healthy. People
    will work for a cause that they feel passionately about. They may
    contribute money or vote for other causes, but they won't put
    their heart into them.
    
    When I was in college I cared strongly about many issues. I finally
    had to decide that I could only influence a very small 'circle'
    (as a figured it), that I mentally defined as the reach of my
    emotional, financial & intellectual 'arms'. So I chose to adopt
    needy kids, and move to a farm, and try and live a more sound
    ecological life style, because those were achievable, doable
    goals. 
    
    I think that most people who put their energies into a single
    cause do it for the same reason. By focusing their effort they
    can achieve more. By diffusing them, by supporting everything,
    then they achieve much less.
    
    We have to make choices as to where we put our energies and resources,
    and that should be in places that matter to us.
    
    Bonnie

I see nothing wrong with special interest groups which seek to inform the
general populus about important matters which are not getting the attention they
deserve.  Nor do I see anything wrong in a person choosing where to apply their
limited time, energy, and financial assistance where they feel they can do the
most good, and where they will feel the most satisfaction from serving others.

I feel that handicapped and the example of the concord bridge are worthwhile
causes because they are causes with the goal of making the opportunities of the
minority equal to the opportunities of the majority.  The costs of handicapped
facilities in new construction is trivial, especially when considering the
savings of enabling the handicapped to be more independant.  You have to ask not
is this good for the majority, or is this good for the minority, but is this
good for everyone.  If you consider the question from this point of view, I'm
sure you would consider it a good thing that everyone in concord be able to be
involved in the town activities. 

What I dislike, are those special interest groups who put their hand in my
pocket *without* my consent, such as Farm product subsidy and Farm financial
subsidies.  This is a far cry from letting each person choose where to apply
themselves. If a cause is so all fired important, surely the majority will
voluntarily support it.  Few causes are worth the use of force to get support
for them.

Some of the more innocuous special interest groups are those who use a single
criteria for establishing a goal or candidate.  A good case in this point would
be the NRA support of Bush because Dukakis favors gun control. 

The worst are those 'radical' special interest groups which claim special rights
and priviledges which the majority do not have, and want more.  The feminist
movement is a good example of this in that a number of principles apply only to
feminists, and they are reluctant to give up any of the special priviledges
which they have had historically.  Often, reverse discrimination is justified as
a way of equalizing oppression and the special interest group will treat others
in ways which are quite similiar to ways that they are protesting against.
Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. The racial hiring quota system is another
good example. 

True, not all special interest groups, and not all members of any special
interest groups make these mistakes.  But often the more moderate people are
berated by the more radical as not being "politically correct", meaning
'single-minded devotion to *our* cause'. 

Jim.

	RE:  .0
    
	> But the usual way to fight for justice is hate and anger.  
    
    	Well, one way to fight against justice is to slam those who
    	SEEK justice by claiming that they are at fault for not being
    	more general (i.e., for not bringing up, in their platform,
    	every example of injustice that has ever happened in the history
    	of the world.)  When one does that, there is no possible way
    	that the group who SEEKS justice can ever hope to answer to
    	the criticisms of those whose main goal is to discredit both
    	the movement and its supporters.
    
	>Not only forgiveness of the oppressors, but forgive the oppressed. 

    	What have "the oppressed" done that you feel needs to be forgiven?
    
	> Isn't there anyone or any organization who wants to help
    	> everyone?  
    
    	What would you suggest they do?  Should they change all special 
    	interest groups to one huge generic "People Against Unfair Stuff" 
    	(and all pass out 1,000-page pamphlets to explain all the different
    	beliefs?)
    
    	Special interest groups are specialized because there is no
    	effective way to explain a position without specialized research.
    	If all special interest groups research all issues equally,
    	then no one will know any one issue to a sufficient degree to
    	create public awareness of injustice.
    
    	> Feminists want laws to protect *their* rights, and to hell with 
    	> anyone elses.  
    
    	How did you come to this conclusion?  Was it because they didn't
    	take time to talk to you about how much they care about other
    	causes?  Well, seeing as how you showed ZERO empathy or support
    	for important causes in your basenote, then by your logic, I
    	guess it could be concluded that you think "To HELL with anyone
    	else's rights besides mine."
    
    	> Men in power don't want to give up their power because they 
    	> don't see themselves gaining anything in return; they still feel 
    	> the same demands on themselves being made by society.  Everybody 
    	> fights for their own causes.

    	Here comes the "me, me, me."  If men in power have nothing specific
    	to gain by correcting injustice, then why the hell should they
    	care what happens to anyone else?  Is that what you are saying?
    
	> The state and all the special interest groups in it want to pass 
    	> laws about everything to protect themselves from everybody
    	> else.  They don't realize that by doing that, they put a strait 
    	> jacket of bureaucracy on others and prevent good as well as evil 
    	> in making all the decisions for everybody instead of letting
	> everybody make decisions for themselves.  And they decrease the 
    	> number of people who can perform real work and produce, to boot. 

    	Pray tell, how does what you described decrease the number of
    	people who can perform real work and produce?
    
    	Racial and sexual discrimination kept our natural human resources
    	from being allowed to flourish in the workplace (where their gifts 
    	were sorely needed.)  Or are you suggesting that racial minorities
    	and women HAVE no talents or gifts to share with our society?
    
	> Is everybody short sighted that we can only deal with the issues
     	> which affect us personally?  Can't we empathize with the people 
    	> on the other side and give them something in return, even if it 
    	> is only the emotional gift of letting them know that they've
    	> 'Done The Right Thing'? 

    	Where is YOUR empathy?  Where do YOU ever say that Civil Rights
    	and Feminists groups have done the right thing by increasing
    	opportunities for people who would have NEVER been allowed to
    	share their gifts with the rest of our culture if public awareness
    	had not increased about racial/sexual discrimination in the
    	workplace?
    
    	Or do you think that minorities and women have so little to
    	offer that we should justify our existence in the workplace
   	by "THANKING" members of the majority for putting up with us?
    
	> I believe that even the people who seem to be on top in any 
    	> given situation are being hurt by being scripted to play the 
    	> role of the oppressor.  Not only do the oppressed need to be 
    	> freed from their oppression, but the oppressors need to be
	> freed from their role of oppressor.  It is like a co-dependancy 
    	> where one person is addicted to being a victim, and the other 
    	> person is forced to be the authority in a relationship.  
    
    	How does this work in the case where you feel women are on top
    	(i.e., in divorce settlements)?  Do you think it would help
    	if you stopped treating women as though we always victimize men
    	in divorce/child_custody situations?  (Just curious to see how
    	you feel about situations where YOU are not the one 'on top.')
     
    	> I believe that in society as in physics for every force or action 
    	> there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Unless the oppressed
	> have something to give the oppressors in return it will be a
    	> long uphill battle.
    
    	Again with the "me, me, me" philosophy of the majority (i.e.,
    	"Why should the majority allow justice unless there is 'something
    	in it for me.'")  What about allowing justice for oppressed minorities
    	because "it's the right thing to do."
   
    	Why do some members of the majority feel that facing changes
    	that have them sharing a SMALL section of the total opportunities 
    	with minorities is such a major inconvenience (and is sure to be 
    	"the death of us all?")

"Well, one way to fight against justice is to slam those who SEEK justice by
claiming that they are at fault for not being more general"

Hardly...  As I already stated, I cannot fault any individual for choosing where
to apply themselves.  Then again, I do find fault with the rhetoric for the
masses of extholling 'victory against the oppressors at any cost' without
looking to see how they themselves are part of the problem, and can be part of
the solution of not just their own problems, but other problems as well. 

"Special interest groups are specialized because there is no effective way to
explain a position without specialized research."

Specialization is not the problem.  The problem is the rabid 'us vs. them'
mentality of some special interest groups.

"If men in power have nothing specific to gain by correcting injustice, then why
the hell should they care what happens to anyone else?  Is that what you are
saying?"

What I am saying is that the people in power are cast in that role just as
others are cast as being victims.  They are not any freer to not be the person
in power then the supposed victims.  If someone gives up power, someone else
will take it up.  Nature abhors a power vaccuum.  

There is a monopoly-like psychologal experiment dividing a group into the haves,
and the have not's.  It is impossible for a have to be altruistic and try to
help out the have not's without being ripped apart by both the have's and the
have not's.  Sounds similiar to a Dr. Suizs story, doesn't it? :-) 

"Pray tell, how does what you described decrease the number of people who can
perform real work and produce?"

Everyone's too busy being a burueocrat and shuffling papers.

"Or are you suggesting that racial minorities and women HAVE no talents or gifts
to share with our society?"

How did you ever dream up that I believe this?

What I meant by 'do the right thing', was not exactly the DEC FTRT, which is
straight forward in comparison.  What I meant was that the situation needs to be
resolved in a way that all parties are genuinely pleased with the outcome. This
means that everyone has to feel that there was a problem initially, and that
both parties have to feel that they are better off with the dispute settled. Gun
to the head negotiating by either side is right out.  All that will do is
breed more problems.

"Or do you think that minorities and women have so little to offer that we
should justify our existence in the workplace by "THANKING" members of the
majority for putting up with us?"

Not at all.  #1, I don't think that minorities and women have little to offer in
the first place.  I feel that they have a great deal to offer, just as do other
segments of society.  #2, I don't see how anyone can justify their existance by
thanking others for putting with them; that's no way to justify your existance.

However, I think that we could all do better by acknowledging thanks to those in
our lives who humor us while we are working on an aspect of ourselves to 'get it
right'. :-)  But that's entirely unrelated.

"Do you think it would help if you stopped treating women as though we always
victimize men in divorce/child_custody situations? (Just curious to see how you
feel about situations where YOU are not the one 'on top.')" 

Women are not "always" on top...  however, it does occasionally seem that way
with any 'us vs. them' situation.  Me? I have no complaints about my current
situation. 

"What about allowing justice for oppressed minorities because "it's the right
thing to do.""

My point is that you can't force justice, without getting consensus that
injustice existed, and what justice would be.  There is always something both
sides can give to each other, at least understanding... 

"Why do some members of the majority feel that facing changes that have them
sharing a SMALL section of the total opportunities with minorities is such a
major inconvenience (and is sure to be "the death of us all?")"

My point is that it isn't seen as being a "SMALL section of the total
opportunities".  The majority sees it as the reason why they are on top, and the
minority is on the bottom.  Take away that reason, and the minority will be on
top, and the majority will be on the bottom.  This fear needs to be addressed as
surely as the anger of the minority.  

A good example might be where the majority discriminates against a minority in
job opportunities.  A good solution to the end of the job discrimination would
empathize less minorities on welfare which the majority are paying for, less
crime by the minority on the majority, ...

Still up to your old tricks Suzzanne?  Still putting words in my mouth?

Jim.

	RE:  .12
    
	> I see nothing wrong with special interest groups which seek 
    	> to inform the general populus about important matters which 
    	> are not getting the attention they deserve.  
    
    	Jim, I agree with you completely on this.  Racial and sexual
    	discrimination are such important matters that deserve attention.
    	I am extremely grateful to the groups who put these topics
    	forward into public awareness.
    
   	> Nor do I see anything wrong in a person choosing where to apply 
    	> their limited time, energy, and financial assistance where they 
    	> feel they can do the most good, and where they will feel the 
    	> most satisfaction from serving others.

    	Well, we're two for two so far, Jim, because I agree with this
    	completely.  Issues like Civil Rights and Women's Rights (not
    	to mention many other important causes) are so time-consuming
    	in and of themselves that I see no reason for anyone to apologize
    	or be made to feel guilty for concentrating their energy in
    	one or two small areas.
    
    	As an aside, the two causes that get most of my personal 
    	contributions are for the benefit of physically challenged
    	people and rape victims (at a Rape Crisis Center.)  Although
    	I am not physically challenged myself, nor have I ever been
    	raped, they are the two causes for which I am most willing
    	to donate money.  (I'm also a contributor to Greenpeace,
    	tho.)  Almost forgot.  :-)
    
    	> I feel that handicapped and the example of the concord 
    	> bridge are worthwhile causes because they are causes with the 
    	> goal of making the opportunities of the minority equal to the 
    	> opportunities of the majority.  
    
    	Good grief, we are agreeing on EVERYTHING in this note so far.
    	I happen to *like* causes that have the goal of "making the
    	opportunities of the minority equal to the opportunities of
    	the majority."  That's the very reason why I support both
    	the Civil Rights *AND* the Women's Rights movements.  
    	
    	> The costs of handicapped facilities in new construction is 
    	> trivial, especially when considering the savings of enabling 
    	> the handicapped to be more independant.  
    
    	That's true about racial and sexual minorities as well.  What
    	it has cost (in dollars) to provide minorities with opportunities
    	has been quite trivial compared to the benefits involved in
    	enabling minorities and women to be more independent (and better
    	able to seek financial security in their own right.)
    
    	> You have to ask not is this good for the majority, or is this 
    	> good for the minority, but is this good for everyone.  
    
    	Yes, that's true.  I *have* asked myself if increased opportunities
    	for minorities and women is better for everyone, and the answer
    	that always comes back to me is "YES, YES, YES, YES!!!!!!" 
    	(I get very enthusiastic when I discuss these things with myself.):-)
    
    	> If you consider the question from this point of view, I'm
    	> sure you would consider it a good thing that everyone in concord 
    	> be able to be involved in the town activities. 

    	Jim, Jim, Jim.  If *you* consider Civil Rights and the Women's
    	Movement from this point of view, I'm *sure* you would consider
    	it a good thing that people of all races and sexes are able
    	to be involved (as equals) in workplace activity.
    
	> The worst are those 'radical' special interest groups which 
    	> claim special rights and priviledges which the majority do not 
    	> have, and want more.
    
    	NO!  Tell me who these groups are and I'll rip their hearts
    	out!  Surely you aren't talking about groups that advocate
    	access for the handicapped because they have special parking
    	places and special bathroom stalls (I hope)?  
    
      	> The feminist movement is a good example of this in that a 
    	> number of principles apply only to feminists...
    
    	Care to name a right that feminists have asked for that applies
    	only to feminists?  (I defy you to back up that claim with a
    	few facts, rather than your generalized contrivances.)
    
    	> ...and they are reluctant to give up any of the special priviledges
	> which they have had historically.  
    
    	Which privileges might those be, Laddie?  If you're going to
    	put words in feminists' mouths, then back them up with facts.
    
    	> Often, reverse discrimination is justified as a way of 
    	> equalizing oppression...
    
    	Wrong, and wrong.  Have you already forgotten the stuff you
    	said earlier about how the cost of providing access for the
    	handicapped is trivial compared to the benefits of having
    	such folks be able to be independent?  That is what justifies
    	efforts to provide equal opportunities.  "Equalizing oppression"
    	is YOUR expression for it.  It certainly isn't mine.
    
     	> ...and the special interest group will treat others in ways 
    	> which are quite similiar to ways that they are protesting
    	> against.
    
    	Oh.  Are there supposed to be different sets of behavior rules
    	for the majority and the minority?  Are we stepping over the
    	bounds of the way you think we ought to be allowed to act
    	(considering our reduced status in society?)
    
	> Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. The racial hiring quota 
    	> system is another good example. 

    	Racial hiring quotas have nothing whatsoever with "two wrongs
    	making a right."  All it means is that instead of having the
    	old 100% White Male Hiring Quota that we *USED* to have, we
    	now have only an 85% White Male Hiring Quota now.
    
    	Although I'm sure it is inconvenient and stressful to lose that
    	100% quota that you used to have, our culture decided it was
    	not just.  So now you'll have to settle for 85-95% (for the
    	highest paying jobs) instead.  I know that is a serious blow
    	to white males (and that a lot of White Male Doctors, Lawyers,
    	Congressmen, Engineers, and CEO's will end up living under
    	bridges for allowing a few minorities into their fields, but
    	there was simply no other way to start an end to racial and
    	sexual discrimination, so I guess some of you will have some
    	adjusting to do.) 
    
    	I'm being facetious, of course.
    
    	> True, not all special interest groups, and not all members of 
    	> any special interest groups make these mistakes.  But often 
    	> the more moderate people are berated by the more radical 
    	> as not being "politically correct", meaning 'single-minded 
    	> devotion to *our* cause'. 

    	Well, thanks for not condemning the entire Civil Rights and
    	Women's rights movements.
    
    	I can also say that NOT ALL white males are so small minded
    	that they are completely outraged at the idea that some
    	minority groups actually exist that don't spend all their
    	time fawning over white men for their approval of every
    	thing the minorities say and do.  I also know that not all
    	white men are so petty that they feel like fighting the tiny
    	percentages of minorities who are being given opportunities in
    	their field as if it were the equivalent of an invasion by
    	the Huns.
    
    	Not all white men exhibit this attitude.  Some do, though.

	RE:  .16

    	> All I see tonight is lots of the "any event that has ever
    	> happened, is happening, or will happen is an example of sexism".
    
    	Mike, I'm so surprised to see you engaging in such gross
    	stereotypical exxaggeration (and then wrapping quotes around
    	your words as if anyone had actually said anything like that.)
    
    	This topic isn't just about women's rights.
    

    
    No, it's not, BUT...........
    
    	It sure started to sound that way.
    
    

    	RE:  .19   -< Can we nip it in the bud???? >-

    	>> This topic isn't only about women's rights.
        
    	> No, it's not, BUT..........
    	> It sure started to sound that way.
    
    	Hey, no problem.  There are plenty of other minority groups
    	that have yet to be sufficiently trashed in this topic so far.
    
    	Have at it.
    

    
    
    .20
    
    	Nah, I myself don't have the time for it.
    
    	You see, I'm too busy doing something about my own financial
    status, to just sit and bitch about how tough I've got it.
    
    It still seems to me that if you've got it tough, or if you haven't
    cracked a certain financial level, that it is too easy to blame
    "society" for your financial level.
    
    I guess for some people it's just too tough to try and do something
    about it.
    
    Oh well, as the kitty keeps saying....
    
    			Life's a bitch!
    
    

    	RE:  .21
    
    	Aren't stereotypes wonderful?
    
    	Well, as it happens, I'm an engineer (college grad, don't
    	ya know) and my career is doing just fine.
    
    	Also, I'm working on MY future prospects, too, by studying for
    	my upcoming Corporate Engineering Review Board.

    	If you thought you saw me bitching about my own personal
    	situation, you were obviously mistaken.  
    
    

    re .8, Jon-
    
    > Learn to ski ... from patient, non-sexist, non-adultist instructors. 
    >
    > Non-adultist ?? Anyone know what that means ?
               
    Perhaps its a reference to the style of some ski-instructors!
    Non-adultist means they won't act as though they are the adult,
    you the child...or perhaps it means they'll behave with the enthusiasm
    and exuberance of a child for skiing...
    
    I must say that their phrase is oblique at best, though!
    
    Back on topic, SIGs-
          
    Bonnie Jeanne had it right; one must focus.  SIGs permit one to
    parcel out one's most precious commodity, the limited time of one's
    life, to those issues which deserve such a boon.  Judge not others'
    choices; to whom would you give over control of YOUR time?  Lastly,
    preserve this republic (sorry, GIA folks) which permits such diversity.
    
    DougO
    

    Re: .15
    
    I was generally nodding my head as I read, until I screeched to
    a halt at:
    
    >> ...and the special interest group will treat others in ways 
    >> which are quite similiar to ways that they are protesting
    >> against.
    >
    >Oh.  Are there supposed to be different sets of behavior rules
    >for the majority and the minority?  Are we stepping over the
    >bounds of the way you think we ought to be allowed to act
    >(considering our reduced status in society?)
    
    Jim's argument, as I understand it, is that there should NOT be
    different sets of behavior rules.  The objection isn't "minorities
    aren't allowed to treat the majority in the same way that the majority
    treats the minority."  Rather, I see the objection being "Minorities
    object to be treated a certain way.  They should be consistent in
    their beliefs and not treat others in the same way they object to
    being treated."
    
    The point of argument then becomes whether minorities attempt to
    treat the majority in ways that the minority has pronounced odious.
    In other words, are the minorities guilty of hypocrisy?
    
    As far as quotas go, my primary objection is that they're a stopgap
    measure that doesn't address the real problem.  People object (with
    or without justification) that someone less qualified was hired
    because of quotas.  If people would work harder at opening up the
    opportunities to *get* qualified, the quota/qualification issue
    would become moot.  But this probably belongs in another note.