Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    	I don't have documentation of that figure, but I have read 
    	recently that 80% of all women working make less than 
    	$20,000 per year. 
    
    	Staggering when one considers that many of that 80% are
    	likely to be single mothers.
    
    	Sharon

    
         Lots of women cars thieves out there then I guess. Two out
        of three of all the $18,000.+ sports cars I see on the heavily
        travelled way to work are driven by women.
    
    
    

    I have heard statistics that women make anywhere from $.56 to $.60 for
    every dollar men make.  I am very interested in finding out who
    compiled this statistic and where I can get a copy of the analysis
    report(s) that support that statistic.  
    
    Can anyone help me with this? 
               
    Mike
    

    I'd guess that the U.S. Department of Labor compiles the basic
    information.  I remember a little something in "Time" some months
    ago about how the ratio was now up to 68 cents to the dollar.
    
    						Ann B.

    	Some of the men at the top skewer those figures:
    
    CEO of Microsoft ---> $23,000,000 per year
    CEO    Chrysler  ---> $ 7,500,000 per year
    CEO    Revlon    ---> $15,500,000 per year
    Then there's Donald Trump:
    			approx. $2,780,000 per day
    
    There aren't enough Mary Kay's to offset.
    
    Ken

         For a breakdown by job description the figures for 1985 are
    available in the September 1986 issue of Monthly Labor Review
    pages 28-32.  They include Total employed, average weekly earnings,
    the same figures for men and women, the ratio of earnings female
    to male, and the percentage of female workers in the job description.
    
        The total figures for 1985 are:
    
    Total Employed              77,002,000
    Weekly Earnings                   $343
    Men Employed                45,589,000
    Men's Weekly Earnings             $406
    Women Employed              31,414,000
    Women's Weekly Earnings           $277
    Earnings ratio female/male        68.2
    Percent Female Workers            40.8
    
        I would imagine that the 1986 figures are in the September 1987
    issue.
    
    ASP

    A few  years  ago  (when  the  song  59 cents was written), it was
    claimed  that women made 59% of what men made. This was misleading
    as  it  was simply average woman's income divided by average man's
    income.  Among other things it was *not* corrected for were: Women
    working  part  time more often than men, women on average had been
    in  the  workforce a shorter time than men (hence less seniority),
    education, and any other difference you can think of.

    When the  numbers  were  corrected  for  hours worked, time in the
    workforce,  time in current job, education, and (I think) age, the
    difference  became  smaller (83% sticks in my mind). I don't think
    these  were  corrected  for  women working in jobs that payed less
    than predominantly male jobs.

--David

        The figures by occupation in the article mentioned in .6 require
    at least 50,000 people to be employed in a job description to give
    an average weekly salary for that job.  So there are quite a few
    male and female dominated jobs where the salary comparison isn't
    considered valid and therefore is unavailable.
    
        But of the remaining job categories where at least 50,000 people
    of both sexes are employed none of them have a female to male earnings
    ration greater than 1.  Even in the traditionally remale occupations
    where you would expect women to have higher seniority.  The occupations
    that I would consider to fall under that category are.
    
                                             ratio earnigns      Percent
                                                times 100    Female workers
                                             --------------  --------------
    Registered Nurses                            87.6             93.6
    Health technologists and technicians         81.6             80.6
    Secretaries, stenographers, and typists      80.6             97.7
    Textile sewing machine operators             80.6             89.4
    
    
        In looking over the figures further I've identified some of
    the occupations with less than 50,000 men working in them were the
    men have to make less on average than the women.  They are:
    
    Dietitians
    Prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers
    Typists (make an equal amount)
    
    ASP

    Note that  this  still  doesn't correct for hours worked per week.
    It  is  still  the case that there are more women than men working
    part-time.

    I believe that there really is discrimination against women in pay
    scales,  but  using  carelessly collected statistics to argue that
    point  merely  gives credence to the people who oppose change. I'm
    not  trying  to argue that women are paid equitably, only that the
    statistics  to  show that must be looked at carefully. (What can I
    tell you, I was a math major for most of my college career.)

--David

    re: .9
    
        The statistics that I presented for are only for full time workers.
    (Those who usually work 35 or more hours per week)
    
    ASP

    re: .3
    
    Mike,
    
    The group that I am working in (SR & PD) is currently getting ready
    for 3 year goals and one is equal pay for equal jobs.  The data
    that was referenced was the Bureau of Labor Statistics that have
    women making $.68 for every $1.00 a man makes.  I do not know how
    you can get the documantation, maybe a library or some other resource
    like that.
    
    
    TammyG

    re .9.
    
    I agree, the statistics need to be recalculated to include a true
    average for all categories.  Perhaps one of the points that will
    represent a better majority is to compare hours worked, to hours
    paid.  For example- a recent study (again with statistics) show
    that women on the average work 68-72 hours a week (Boston Globe
    Article- I will try to find the piece and perhaps type it in under
    a new topic), while the average for men is 42-54.  True a big issue
    here is work done in the home.  But it is important to remember
    in drawing these statistics from one's head, or some mathematical
    formula (I spent a good 3 years in college statistics classes),
    that many women who work a full-time job, arrive at home to face
    another full-time job.  
    
    Something when making these statistics is that jobs often that are
    often female-dominated tend to be in the lower pay range.  It is
    easy to assert that men's salaries are more because the jobs they
    do are higher paid, but in reality we must begin to reevaluate the
    value of individual jobs on needs and duties rather then on what
    sex dominates this area of work.  Think about this, one of the most
    important needs are child care- after all children are the future
    adults that will shape our world; and yet child care is one of the
    lowest paid jobs.  
    
    But to get back to the point-- more factors should be taken into
    consideration before cranking out statistical averages that are
    all too often misleading and misused.
    
    Terri
    

    The amount of time a person works outside the workplace is not the
    resposibility  of  the  employer,  and  should  not  be taken into
    account when comparing salaries.

    There are  several  reasons  that female-dominated jobs tend to be
    lower  in  the  salary  range.  One is simply discrimination: If a
    woman  is  doing  the  job,  it can't be that important/demanding:
    Secretaries  get  a  lot  less  respect  now that it's no longer a
    typically  man's  job.  Similarly for teachers. It's possible that
    the same thing is happening to doctors now. Another reason is that
    (according  to  some  studies)  women are more willing than men to
    sacrafice  pay  for  what  economists call "psychic wages" such as
    pleasant  working  conditions  (air  conditioned  offices  vs. hot
    factory  floors).  I'm  certainly  willing to accept lower pay for
    more interesting work.

    Changing pay scales to approach "comparable worth" is very tricky.
    It  means  changing  our  society  in  the direction of a "planned
    economy".   Completely   planned   economies  simply  don't  work.
    Completely  free  economies have other problems. Finding the right
    compromise  is  difficult, and is not likely to result from making
    changes  to  correct whichever inequity or inefficiency happens to
    catch our attention.

    If driving  a  truck  pays more than being a secretary, you should
    either  learn  to drive a truck or decide that the higher pay of a
    truck   driver   isn't   worth  the  agravation  of  dealing  with
    incompetent drivers all the time. We all make compromises, this is
    one  of them. (It is important, and obvious that we can't tolerate
    discrimination  in pay for equal work.) This argument doesn't hold
    for  jobs  that  are  highly trained, as those people have a large
    investment  in  their current job, and may not be able to make the
    investment  to  learn  a  new  job.  I'm  not sure there's a quick
    solution  to  this, but over time it will change as younger people
    avoid  the  poorly  paid  jobs.  This  is  currently  happening in
    nursing.  Several  hospitals  in  New  York  have  asked to reopen
    contract  talks  with  nurses  inorder  to increase their salaries
    before all the nurses leave.

--David

'low pay in child care'

This is kind of a vicious cirlce of something...

You can't pay child care providers very much without making child care so
expensive that parents can't afford child care so that they can work...

There's one anomaly that bugs me in comparing how much men and women make...

When I go to a mall, there are twice as many stores catering to women as there
are to men.  Women always seem to have twice as much more expensive clothing
then men.  Women always seem to have more expensive jewlery etc then men.
Someone else said that 2/3rds of the flashy sports cars they saw were driven by
women...

How is all this possible in light that women make less money?  I can only
conclude that although women make less money, more money is spent by and on
women. 

Which is the 'real' inequality?

JMB

    re .15
    
    
    Have you ever thought of the inequity that women's clothes are priced
    higher then mens?  A majority of styles etc are very expensive in
    women's fashions- and when you move to the men's section, you can
    they are more often then not lower in price.  (Which is why I alway
    shop in the men's section for some things like shirts and short
    first.)
    
    Before you can say that more women own flashy cars etc (I have a
    tercel and pass many a guy with a porsche, or corvette), you might
    want to take in the lane beside you...
    
    

    The "average" woman's salary (total salary divided by number of
    women working) is about 68% of the "average" man's salary (total
    salary divided by number of men working), as was mentioned a while
    back.  This number is computed by the Bureau of Labor Relations
    using their rules -- before anybody asks, no, I don't know what
    those rules are, but I'm pretty sure they include only full-time
    workers. 
    
    But there's an interesting glitch in the statistics -- the numbers
    indicate that women who entered the work force in 1978 or later
    make slightly *more* than men in the same job with the same
    education and the same experience.  About 9% more. 
    
    I don't know if that means things are improving (from .59 to .68
    sounds like quite a lot of improvement to me) or if it just means
    most women don't get a chance to compete against men of equal
    background.
    
    --bonnie 

    So you are saying that the "glitch" is an improvement???
    
    If this is so then that is no better than if a MAN was making 9%
    more than a woman....Right?
    
    so, when a man is making more....not equal.
    When a woman IS making more......Equal.   Oh.
    
    If this sounds sarcastic...it is!
    
    I think that it is not any better than the first way.
    
    It SHOULD BE:  Education-equal....experience-equal... PAY-EQUAL.

"Have you ever thought of the inequity that women's clothes are priced higher
then mens?"

Yes, I have, not to mention the poorer workmanship and lack of 'beauty' in
woman's styles.  But, women seem to put up with it...

JMB

  Re .17:
    
    "So you are saying that the 'glitch' is an improvement???"
                               
    
    No...she didn't say that...
    

    
    -Tracy

    As an aside to the clothing difference .....
    
    How about the haircut?  I go have my hair cut at the same salon
    as my husband.  I have my top bangs trimmed and the back of my hair
    is long and straight.  One snip along the back.
    
    My husband's hair is layered all over.  He takes 1 to 1+1/2 hours
    to have his cut and mine takes 15 min.
    
    The difference?  His costs $15.00 and mine cost $22.00!!!
    
    Men's cuts are usually cheaper.
    

RE .21
> -< So if woman spend more moeny [SIC], now [SIC] can they be 'making' less? >-

    Is this a serious question, or just more noise? 
    
    There's a big difference between citing a few individual products or
    services which charge more to women and showing that on the average,
    women spend more than men. If you have statistics showing this to be
    the case (comparing apples and apples: spending derived from an
    individual's own earnings, etc.), you can amaze and entertain us
    all.
    
    Unfortunately, I fear .21 amounts to little more than a "so's
    your old parent" attack, rather than a serious attempt at discourse.

    
    re .23
    
    Spot on!
    
    So why do people pay attention to it?

    There's another mathematical fallacy to Jim's question.
    
    Women can spend more money than men while earning less money than
    men by spending a larger percentage of their salaries than men do.
    
    --- jerry

    I've set the Eagle's .23 hidden as it contains pointed and unfavorable
    speculation about the character of another member of the community.
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    Given equivalent education level and equivalent work experience
    Woman are paid equally to men. period.
    
    Men have been in the workforce on the average longer hence are
    in higher positions so they make more money.
    
    I read somewhere and I'll have to go looking for it, that college
    educated women after 1975 make a 1.01 compared to college men.
    
    Who would you rather be, a 1988 college grad woman or man looking
    for a job.  Have you seen a rec that requires a man must fill it?
    This is bull***it.
    
    Todays society promotes reverse descrimination.
    
    		- A.J.

    Let us hypothesize three college graduates, one woman, and two
    men.  Let us stipulate that the woman and one of the men are of
    equal capabilites, and both are better than the other man.
    
    If the better man's best starting salary is $50K, and is at level
    X, but the woman can only find her best job at a starting salary
    of $39K, at level X-1, while the worse man finds his best job at
    $38.5K, at level X-1, do we not find that we have the makings of
    the statistical situation you state obtains?  Yet still have a
    practical situation of blatant sexism?
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .29
    
    >If the better man's best starting salary is $50K
    
    Then I'd LOVE to know which college he graduated from....

"Women can spend more money than men while earning less money than men by
spending a larger percentage of their salaries than men do."

Now how can women afford to spend a larger percentage of their saleries then
men?

I have considered spent on/for woman/man as being different from non sex-
differientated goods such as staple foods, and money 'invested' as depending on
what it is invested for. 

FTCL, this *is* a serious question.  I have had the experience of going into a
mall, and seeing women's stores outnumber men's stores 2 to 1.  Someone must be
supporting those stores, and it ain't men benifiting.  So my question, while
certainly not conclusive, is certainly not baseless either.  Give that tune a
rest... 

JMB

    RE:28
    
    	I could easily tangent this discussion but that would serve
    no purpose. I find that in certain career fields that there is 
    discrimination. However in quote unquote the engineering field.
    I have never found a woman who graduated in my yr from college -
    86 - that didn't make around my salary, in fact most of my female
    friends made more than I did.
    
	Did these women deserve to make more than me, yup they sure did.
    I think the major salary problem occurs when you transfer companies.
    The new company will pay you your old salary + something nice to
    induce you to come over, this of course is totally unfair, cause
    now you are making much more than your co-workers, who know "more"
    about your specific job, or project. I think men get away with this
    more than women so men's salaries are artificially inflated, again
    these are the people who company hop.
    
    	I believe that people graduating in the last few yrs are pretty
    much treated equal. In fact - hot spot - certain groups are 
    discriminated against - that group being white males.
    
    mike

>FTCL, this *is* a serious question.  I have had the experience of going into a
>mall, and seeing women's stores outnumber men's stores 2 to 1.  Someone must be
>supporting those stores, and it ain't men benifiting.  

	Some questions:

	  What's FTCL mean?

	  It seems to me that if women (as a group) stopped 
	  paying high prices for things, then the prices would
	  fall (I only took Macro Economics I, so maybe my approach
	  is to simple...?)

	  Perhaps men are benifiting by being able to see lots
	  of women wrapped up in pretty (and expensive) packages?
	  I spend a lot less on clothes than many of my female
	  friends, but then, I don't dress as nicely...

	Any ideas on these?
	
	Kb

    
    re: .34
    
    >   It seems to me that if women (as a group) stopped        
    >paying high prices for things, then the prices would     
    >fall (I only took Macro Economics I, so maybe my approach
    >is to simple...?)                                        
     
    HOW? 

    A lot of working women have neither the time nor the inclination
    to stroll the malls in a leisurely fashion wandering aimlessly in
    and out of a variety of overpriced high-fashion stores and spending
    money they might have (or might not have) earned.  I know I don't
    spend my time/money that way.  When I need clothes - I shop with
    a purpose, in stores that give me value for my dollar.
    
    A lot of working women may spend money on their clothes because
    they want them to last.  Classic clothes never go out of style.
    
    I believe that the women who go to up-to-the-minute-fashion-stores with
    highly-inflated-prices to get their wardrobes are damned to spend
    more money on clothes...not just because they are expensive initially,
    but because if they are determined slaves of fashion, they must
    replace wardrobe items constantly - often before they wear out -
    simply to maintain the level of appearance that they feel is important
    to them.  This is neither here nor there - but since some women
    are constantly buying new clothes to "keep up with fashion", they
    are bound to buy more (both in volume and variety) than their staid 
    male counterparts who wear their classic suits for many years
    
    as for me, I'll take Sears, Filenes, and Jordan Marsh.  Tried and
    true.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    	I think we've gone down a slight rathole here . . . 
    
    	re .29  what??????

re: .35
         
>    HOW? 

	If demand goes down and supply stays constant, then
	eventually merchandisers will end up with a surplus
	on their hands.  They'll want to get rid of it (to
	cut their losses), so they'll drop their prices (ie.
	have a sale).  If this continues for a long period
	of time with demand dropping, eventually prices will
	drop overall so there will be no surplus.  Either that
	or merchandiser will supply less, and hope that their
	high prices will be paid by the minority that's still
	buying.

    I'll bet $50. that nobody can find in this company of over one hundred
    thousand employees even *one* man (especially a white man) who has
    (1) been in the company as long as I have - almost 13 yrs. (2) is
    as old as I am - almost 39 yrs., and who (3) makes as low pay as
    I do.  I'll bet $50. that that man does NOT exist!!!  (And, if he
    does, and I'm not trying to be cruel here, he's probably an itinerant
    and/or mentally retarded janitor emptying wastebaskets or cleaning
    toilets).  The reason for this is that so far in this economy, with
    the possible exception of recent graduates of engineering colleges,
    men make a lot more money than women.
    
    My ex-boyfriend started in this company with a high school diploma
    about 17 years ago.  He started operating the elevators in the Mill.
     During the past 17 years he left DEC and got re-hired twice.  He
    is now an instructor earning about $10K more a year than me.
    
    My ex-husband started as a Tech 1 in DEC 14 yrs. ago making $4.
    an hour!!  He has a 2 yr. liberal arts degree from Quinsig. Community
    College in Worcester.  Now he's a software engineer making over
    twice my pay!
    
    My current boyfriend is a college dropout who works at DEC as a
    technician making about $12K more a year than me.  He's been with
    the company about 3 years.
    
    The fact is that for years women who didn't go to college, who applied
    for jobs in big companies were given typing tests.  If they did
    good, they were given secretarial jobs.  If they didn't, they were
    put on assembly lines.  Men with high school diplomas have been
    given all kinds of different opportunities for years, with all sorts
    open doors to higher pay.  
    
    When I meet men who are technicians or even engineers at DEC I'm
    usually meeting average, joe smoe's, with average brains and ambition.
     When I mean female engineers or even techs I find myself meeting
    extremely brilliant, ambitious women.  The average women are
    secretaries making sh*t pay.  The average man is a tech making $10
    to $20K more a year.
    
    This is not fair.  Jobs that women have been traditionally pushed
    into are not appreciated by this society and low paid.  Men do not
    appreciate what comes naturally to most women, only what comes
    naturally to most men - like driving trucks and lifting heavy things.
    
    Secretaries, waitresses, cashiers, nurses, teachers, librarians,
    social works are almost all women and are all underpaid.  Truck
    drivers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, engineers, are almost
    all women are paid enough money to live a life on.
    
    I don't want to learn to drive a truck in order to get decent pay.
     I want to get decent pay for what comes naturally to *me* - typing,
    answering the phone, and solving all those stupid little problems
    that all you professionals in DEC need secretaries to help you with
    a hundred times a day!
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .39, sorry Ann, I know this annoys you, but of course I meant
    to say that the truck drivers, electricians, etc. are all *men*
    making decent pay, - and - I meant to say when I *meet* women engineers
    not "mean" women engineers - :-).
    
    When I'm MAD - I type fast and make mistakes!
    
    Lorna
    

    I once applied for a job at a sizeable company and was told the
    only opening for me was in telephone sales at minimum wage.  A male
    friend who applied to the same company on the same day was told
    that the only opening for him was as an apprentice in their printing
    room at 3 times what the telephone person would get.  Not only was
    there a bit of a difference in salary but there was a difference
    in opportunity (never mind attitude!).  My experience has been that
    I have not been paid what men get paid in salary, perks, or
    opportunity.
    
    Simply making an observation here, no flames.
    
    Dondi
    

    Re: .39
    
    Lorna, you have not provided us with the details of your own job
    or background in order to complete the comparison, though I gather
    you are a secretary.
    
    What you are bringing up is the perfectly valid issue of "comparable
    worth".  You're saying that job X is just as important as job Y,
    therefore person doing X should be paid comparably to person doing
    Y.  This is, of course, a VERY sticky subject and not amenable to
    quick fixes.
    
    As I see it, there are two related problems.  One is "comparable
    worth".  The other is that women tend to get "stuck with" the
    traditionally low-paying jobs.  I believe that, in general, for
    a particular job, pay for men and women with the same experience
    tends to be equal nowadays.  I think this is where the "woman makes
    $1.01 where man makes $1.00" comes in.  (I read it as $1.02, but
    it hardly matters.)  But the way our society has been run for thousands
    of years, women are steered or steer themselves towards jobs that,
    though are critically important to our society, get absurdly low
    wages.
    
    Consider the typical income of a family day-care provider.  In 99.9%
    of the cases these are women, who take care of 1-2 children in their
    home, and get, let's say, $100/week/child for 45 hours of work.
    (Higher in some areas, lower in others.)  This works out to just
    over $2 an hour per child, and there are no "benefits".  The minimum
    wage is something like $3.65/hour now, right?
    
    But the woman who typically does day-care has insufficient education
    or experience to do better in the business world.  She probably
    stayed at home to raise her own children, making it more difficult
    to attain equity with her husband who continued to work.  Day-care
    is an incredibly demanding job, though it does not require formal
    training, and is of utmost importance to our society.  So why do
    we insist on paying so little?
    
    Secretaries are in the same boat.  The typical secretary starts
    out with little formal training at a low salary, and "learns on
    the job".  That on-the-job training can result in a spectacularly
    competent worker, one who is worth her weight in platinum to
    a business.  But why do we insist on not compensating them comparable
    to what they are worth to us?
    
    How do we change this?  I dunno...  It's not going to happen overnight,
    that's for sure.
    
    				Steve

    It is well to remember that Digital, and engineering groups
    in general are very much an "ivory tower" relative to the rest
    of the working world.
    
    The *fact* is that women (in general) are paid less, advance
    more slowly, and hold fewer high-level positions than men.
    
    To re-hash the famous quote (paraphrasing, cause I don't remember
    exactly) - Equality is not when a female genius makes as much as
    a male genius; it's when a female schlemiel makes as much as a male
    schlemiel.
    
    --DE
    

    RE .42, Steve, to answer your question about my background, I have
    a high school diploma, took a one year secretarial course, have
    been doing office work since 1970, have worked at DEC for almost
    13 years, the first 3 1/2 as a "word processing operator" and the
    last 9 1/2 as a secretary.  I've been an admin. sec. for over 3
    years.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re "comparable worth".  I participated in DIGITAL's salary planning
    process for 4 years and saw both mine and other managers' salary
    plans.  While there was an occasional instance where someone was
    out of line with regard to his/her peers, I NEVER ONCE saw an instance
    where discrimination occurred on the basis of sex.  Never.  In fact,
    DIGITAL goes to great lengths to analyze salaries, taking cuts by
    minority, gender, age, and every other conceivable way, and kicking
    the plans back unapproved if they appear in any way unfair.  I realize
    I'm talking about DIGITAL, and the rest of the world doesn't
    necessarily reflect that, but it's important to me that people
    understand that DIGITAL cares about equality in pay and actively
    tries to make it happen.
    
    OK, next topic.  Lorna, as far as I'm concerned you have a very valid
    beef.  Every year, every manager I dealt with in salary planning voiced
    a concern about secretarial salaries as they relate to the value of the
    job.  The "party line" is that "secretaries are plentiful" and
    therefore we don't have to pay them any more than we do.  Our argument
    was always "Yes, there are lots and lots of secretaries out there, but
    GOOD secretaries are very rare and hard to find and hard to keep and we
    should reward them accordingly." 
    
    Now, just for a moment let's look at why DIGITAL pays what we do for
    any job, and why you get raises.  It is NOT because the company likes
    you and you are a nice person, or even because you contribute $XXX to
    the company and do a good job.  DIGITAL pays to get good people and
    keep good people. Period.  If we could get and keep good people for
    half what we pay now, then we would. 
    
    So DIGITAL pays secretaries what it takes to get and keep them. I do
    NOT agree with our secretarial pay scales, but we are competitive with
    other companies.  And, whether I agree with it or not, that's the
    corporate goal:  to be competitive enough to get and keep the talent we
    need. 
    
    Lorna, please understand I agree with what you're saying.  And I, along
    with other managers, have argued against the corporation's policies.
    But that is DIGITAL's point of view, at least as I understand it, with
    regard to how salary ranges are determined. 
    
    							Pat

    re:.39
    
    Please reread .33, 
    
    I WILL say there is an unjustice towards women who are in non
    ivory tower jobs. But I did point out that when you hop companies
    you get huge raises. There is discrimination towards women when
    it comes to doing physical labor jobs. People just don't want to
    hire women to work in print rooms or whatever. 
    
    But let's talk about today.
    
    This is focusing the issue alot:
    
    Today when "ivory tower" white men come out into the job market
    - at least in this company and many others but not all,
    they have to overcome the potential of not getting a paying job
    at all cause certain slots have been assigned to others.
    
    I beleive we should give a break to those who have been discriminated
    against in the past. In most cases - and I may be wrong here - the
    new hires of today haven't had as many problems getting their education
    and student loans and everything else needed to have the break to
    get a ivory tower job so let's just say we'll evaluate
    everyone based upon their skills and background and hire the best
    we can. 
    
    Sound baised do I?  Not really cause of my school peers I am the dumb one
    and if I were to go against any of them for a job I wouldn't expect
    to get it. 
    
    But I want the same chance.
    
    And again I don't think you'll find a female ivory tower type -
    especially a recent , with in the last 5 yrs , grad that is 
    upset with her salary.

    Mike    
    

    I guess I am too old.... :-(  I got my MS in 1982, so that is more
    than five years ago!  I have been at DEC for 12 1/2 years now, and
    am a principal software engineer.  In most cases I don't know the
    salaries of the people I work with or who have comparable jobs in
    other parts of DEC, but in those cases I do know about, I make about
    10% less than the men who are senior engineers (one job title lower
    than mine).  Now, it could be that the only men who disclose
    their salaries are the cream of the crop (although their reviews
    are the same as mine).  Still, that is better than in most professions.
    I won't even get into the "comparable worth" discussion; the subject
    is too tricky for me!
    
    /Charlotte
                

    
    re .47
    
    		I agree with you mike. I agree that woman have obviously
    gotten the short end of the stick for many years.
    
    		However I seriously question the fairness of making
    someone who graduated from college in 1988 pay for the sins of 
    the previous generations. By this I mean recs that have WOMAN ONLY
    or MINORITY ONLY stamped on them. Is this really fair ?
    
    I say correct the wrongs of the past not compensate for them.
    
    			- A.J.

    <--(.49)
    
    Where such reqs exists, A.J., they are the result of some manager
    having hired so few women/people of color ...in other words, so many
    white men... that there is the danger of a federal EEO lawsuit.
    Typically, the discrimination that results in this sort of corrective
    action will have been a recent, ongoing problem.
    
    						=maggie 

I hear you Lorna...

er, ah... how come you never went to college?

I agree with lorna for the most part, but I do believe that college degree jobs
should pay more then jobs which require low training.  Truck drivers get paid
too much.  Electricians & Plumbers though... Them thar codes are pretty
complicated...

A Book I have, "The Screwing of The Average Man", David Hapgood, Doubleday 1974
has a chapter on education.  It seems that a large number of people are over
trained for their jobs, or at least the training they need could have been given
them in half it took to get the requirements of the job.  And while wanting
everyone to be a professional is nice, by sending more people to college,
college means less, and becomes more a 'weeding out' process.

The basis of the book is the Catch-85 that 85% of people get screwed more then
they screw other people, and come out behind on the "net screwing", and there is
no real distinct "us" vs. "them".

I think more training should be 'on the job'...

JMB 

    	Less than a year before I joined Digital, I took my college
    	degree to a major corporation (after having 5 years of
    	business experience, including managerial) and I was given
    	a typing test.
    
    	It told me what I needed to know about this particular
    	corporation as a potential employer.  
    

    
    just for kicks, consider the thought that people are a commodity just
    like anything else and the value of that commodity is determined
    by the market. it seems clear that, even though the sentence is
    simple, the concept behind it is subtle and complex. do we have
    a 'free market' in labor? do we have 'restrictions' to competition?
    are there labor 'cartels'? and so on...
    

    re:.48
    
    Getting an MS - or any degree - while you work DOES NOT help you. 
    
    Your 12 yrs at dec is what is killing you - if you want more money.
    
    I'll bet if you took 1 week to look for a job outside the company
    you would easily see pretty any raise you want - up to a point.
    
    You could expect a 10-20 percent raise over your current salary.
    I'll bet you make 10% below a number of female senoir engineers
    also. I also bet those senoir engineer friends started after you. 
    
    Dec as a company doesn't keep it's internal people
    competative with their peers outside, seems they only do that at
    hiring time. HOLD ON I am sure it is reasonably competative
    but definately on the lower side, there are other things than money
    in determining job satisfaction which is a rat hole I do not want
    to get into.
    
    Let me rephrase my question
    
    Are there any women out there in ivory tower jobs that have graduated
    from college in the last 5 yr with out working in the real world
    - coop's and summer jobs are okay - that feel they are being denied,
    better salary because they are a women?
    
    re:.?? college hires
    
    I don't hire people so I don't know why you think that most college
    candiates are WASP's? Maybe if you only interview NE schools that
    maybe the problem. ???? not sure.
    
    My point is interview everybody you want, but do not disclude anyone
    cause thay are white males. EEO regs may state some "quota" that
    needs to be filled, and cause someone in the past didn't fill it
    the WASPs of today don't even get the chance to compete.
    
    mike

    

re: .48

>    In most cases I don't know the
>    salaries of the people I work with or who have comparable jobs in
>    other parts of DEC, 

Everyone has a right to see their salary range, and the salary range of
the next job title up. A salary range consists of low/middle/high for that
title. There's a hugh amount of overlap; it seems that the high of one title
is equal to the middle of the next title up.
	Mez

    
    	re .50
    
    		Margret, You say that these reqs exist only as the result
    	of some manager hiring so few women/people of color  that there
    	is a danger of a federal lawsuit. What are you basing this
        statement on? personal experience? Do you know of any cases
        where what you are saying is true. I know of one case where
        this was completly untrue.  A black manager in a VERY intergrated
    	goup wanted to hire a white male. The req this manager had was
    	a miniority req.  This manager had to go to great lengths to
        get the person he wanted. In all honesty that person would never
        had gotten the job if the manager that was raising hell wasn't
    	black.  
    
    
    
    					- A.J.

    
    
    	Well?  Does anyone have any comments on .57?  That story is
    true.  I would like to think that rational people will look at it
    and say "Yes discrimination of any kind is wrong, for any reason".
    But instead I hear nothing. Because of this silence should I assume
    that you all agree that discrmination in certain situations is O.K.?
    
    
    				- A.J.

    	RE:  .58
    
    	Shall I go through all the topics in this conference to which
    	you have *not* responded and tell you what your silence probably
    	meant?
    
    	Good grief.
    

    
    
    	re .59,  I would be happy to let you do it. I always try to
    
    	address any points that may be made directly to me in any topic.
    
    	All to often in Notes the only way people have of refuting a
    
    	valid point is to ignore it. Kinda kills the discussion. If
    
    	someone with whom I am disagreeing with makes a sound or well grounded
    
    	argument argument against what I am saying  I will at least
    
    	acknowledge it.
    
    
    				- A.J. 

    <--(.57 & .58)
    
    Okay, A.J., my rx as requested:
    
    I'm basing my statement on having recruited/hired/helped hire a lot of
    people (a hundred maybe?) over the years and *never* having seen --or
    had a colleague who had personally seen-- any such stamp on a req.  I'm
    also basing my statement on input from a Personnel manager who has been
    a recruiter for a long time and who also has never seen any such stamp.
    Her take is that the only time such a stamp would not be a violation of
    EEO law would be where the organisation is under an agreement with the
    feds that they'll clean up their own act privately in lieu of having a
    federal monitor do it for them in public. 
    
    So if you have personal knowledge of the situation you describe, and it
    occurred recently, then you've knowledge of a violation of the law and
    were I in your place I'd consider blowing the whistle on them.  You can
    get an EEO Audit done by making a complaint (and it can be made
    anonymously) to the EEOC; I'm quite sure that under the current
    administration any possible case of discrimination against white men
    would be investigated promptly and thoroughly. 
    
    						=maggie
                                        

    
    re .61
    
    	I will have check my sources regarding the reqs.
    
    	I have to admit that I have never seen one either. (actually
    
    	I have never seen any kind of req). However, I hear them talked
    
    	about like they are very real.
    
    	One thing I have seen is the resume books. These are
    
    	broken up into a section for white men and a section
    
        for women and minorities.  Why is this done?
    
    
    				- A.J.

    <--(.62)
    
    I'm not sure why resume files would be broken out that way, AJ, and I
    know that mine aren't.  It's too hard to get it right without meeting
    the people first, and after that it typically makes more sense t'me to
    sort them by potential rather than race or ethnicity. 
    
    						=maggie

    re .63:
    
    Don't be so naive. Quotas exist. AA and EEO require certain mixes
    of race and sex. When a group is all white male, and an opening
    exists, the first consideration is that the next person _not_ be
    a white male.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

re:        < Note 88.64 by TFH::MARSHALL "hunting the snark" >


>    of race and sex. When a group is all white male, and an opening
>    exists, the first consideration is that the next person _not_ be
>    a white male.


        That's good! Those considerations need to be laid out in  black
        in white.  When they weren't all groups were white male and were
        destined  to  stay that  way.    Since  the  world  is x% non
        (white male), I become suspicious when a group isn't x% non (white
        male)! Anyway, I notice that you say nothing about
        qualifications. If it is an all  white  male  group  and  there
        is  an  *equally*  qualified non-(white male) interviewing for the
        position, it is in the best interest for the growth and
        diversity  of  that  group  to hire  the  person-of-difference.
        Provided, of course that the group will be able to value that
        person's  difference  without hindering the person's growth! 

        When  people  start to argue that quotas aren't needed, I think
        everyone agrees when  we  think  of  the  world  in  a  vacuum.
        However, history has taught us that white males have a tendency
        to not hire non (white males) unless  they  are  forced  to  do
        otherwise. Sad, but true.

        				Roger Carter

    I've never seen a req that specified a female or minority, but I've
    sure been TOLD by my management that I HAD to fill a certain position
    with a black or female.  And I've brought in fully qualified white
    candidates and had them nixed by my management because they didn't
    fit the female/minority requirement.  Just because a policy isn't
    written down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    
    							Pat

        re: .47, .49, .58

        Yes  someone  will speak up against your claim that now we are,
        all equal.

        Internal  racism  and  sexism  are  *difficult*  to  shed.  Our
        ancestors had to cope with it, and so did we.   For  someone to
        assert  that  because  the  laws  might claim that we are equal
        means that we are so is nonsense.  White males have always been
        able to  achieve  what  they  wanted.    For  that  reason, the
        ancestors of white males were able to go after what they wanted
        in  life  and had things down to them.  Those things were in
        tangible  form  as well as lessons on how to cope in the world.
        Even though a father was very successful, he still didn't  hand
        down his survival skills on his daughter, but instead on his son.

        As non-white-males, we grew up without very many  role  models
        that  went off to college and made success of themselves.  And,
        when a person like us did, it was made out to  be  such  a  big
        deal  as  if  the  person had accomplished some semi-impossible
        feat.  We don't think of ourselves as  superhuman  and  when we
        were brought up believing that we had to be to attain a college
        diploma, it is very tough to shed the anxiety and very easy to
        give up. And,  it is unlikely  that  we  had anyone (another
        woman, minority) in our families who was going to share their
        success  story  with  us, because  that  person,  being older,
        was more held back than we were. 

        So, here we are and your telling us that DEC  sees  us  all  as
        equals. But we remember the past, and the scars from the past
        are still affecting us.  I just read these notes today and  I
        notice one where a person is asking a woman why she stayed a
        secretary for 13 years and didn't go  to  college.    I'll  bet
        that  it has something  to do with all those years where that
        woman was told that being a secretary (in  no  means  meant  to
        belittle the job) was her only alternative.  Having secretarial
        positions shoved down her  throat all her  life,  why is it
        expected  that  she should today be able to shed those feelings
        today and jump into an engineering position?

	And, why do  white-males  expect  us  to  catch up when they have been
        handed down all this money  from  their  previous  generations.
        With  money comes power.  Without power, we are still crippled.
        And yet, we are told that we  are  all  equal  and  white-males
        can't  understand  why we can't keep up on seemingly comparable
        salaries.  I think those inheritances are  helping  those white
        males  a little more than is being let on.  If my ancestors had
        the opportunity to hand me down houses and  money,  I  am  sure
        they  would have.  But they didn't! And if they felt confidence
        and a strong belief in the system, they would have instilled in
        me, but the system was weak and they didn't want to lie to me.

        So, the answer, is ,NO were are not now equal and it will take a
        while before we ever will be.

        					roger

"White males have always been able to achieve what they wanted."

While you may or may not actually believe this literally, it should be pointed
out that this is *not* the case.   White males do *not* have lives of luxury and
ease; being a white male does not automaticly make your life easy.  I believe
that there are plenty of minorities who *do* believe this literally, and so
carry around more anger then is justified. 

JMB

    inre .67, Rodger,
    
    the only thing that my white male husband inheriteed as it were
    from his parents was large debts for college...and it is looking
    now like that is our children's inheritance as well...
    
    just being white and male does not mean you were born with 
    a silver spoon in your mouth and a red carpet at your feet,
    more whites are poor, by shear #s than blacks in the usa...and
    those of us who are middle class certainly do not live on some
    kind of easy steet.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (and Rodger, if you think other wise, let me know if you want to
    make up the difference between our savings and our son's winter
    tuition..
    
    or perhpas you'd like to buy my other kids clothes and or Christmas
    presents..
    
    not everyone who looks like they are better off than you are really
    have it any better.
    
    Bonnie

    re .65:
    
    If they are qualified, I'd hire 'em too. The problem is finding
    qualified people of _any_ sex or race. You should have seen how
    many bozo's we've had interviewing in this group, but I suppose
    you've seen it too. To my mind, the smallest minority of all is
    the qualified applicant. Now to require that that applicant _also_
    be a racial minority or a woman, reduces your chances of filling
    the job to practically zero. The fact is that white males are a
    majority and it is no sin to say that it is therefore more likely
    to be a white male that meets the qualifications of the position.
    [I hope it is clear that I am not talking factory line positions
    here, but advanced development engineering] And it is not that one
    ends up with a list of ten qualified people; 5 white males, 2 white
    women, 2 black males and one black female, and so a white male is
    chosen. No, it is more like after interviewing 20-30 people of all
    races and sex, you try to determine who is the least bozo. More
    often than not, that will end up being a white male. That is just
    a statistical fact and not the result of racism. And because of
    this, you are then told that you had better not hire _him_ because
    you _need_ a minority or a woman.
    
    I am not trying to condone racism or sexism or apologize for it
    in the past. I think prejudice is intellectual dishonesty of the
    worst kind. What I am saying is that it is not always possible to
    get a purely representative distribution of race in a small group
    with very rigorous prerequisites with respect to ability.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .71
    
    "To my mind, the smallest minority of all is the qualified applicant."
    
    Mega-wince (& agreement).  
    
    One form of Mfg-Hell-on-Earth:  we need a qualified Q/A Mgr (like
    yesterday).  I run into one.  A woman!  An Hispanic woman!!  With
    degrees!!!  And experience (call the paramedics. . .)
    
    And she's external to DEC (canel that call)
    
    Think I'll jes' wander on back to the office and chew my wrists
    open. . .
    
    Steve
    

	RE: .71
    
    	> If they are qualified, I'd hire 'em too. The problem is finding
    	> qualified people of _any_ sex or race.....
    	> ..... To my mind, the smallest minority of all is
    	> the qualified applicant. Now to require that that applicant _also_
    	> be a racial minority or a woman, reduces your chances of filling
    	> the job to practically zero. 
    
    		Gee, hardly seems worthwhile to bother *interviewing*
    		non_white_males, does it?  I mean, if you already know
    		that the chances of finding a qualified racial minority
    		or a woman are practically zero, it makes better sense
    		to screen them completely out of the hiring process,
    		doesn't it?  (If it is a foregone conclusion that a
    		white male will get the job, then it would be kinder
    		to keep from wasting minority applicants' time and energy,
    		don't you think?)
    
    	> .... The fact is that white males are a
    	> majority and it is no sin to say that it is therefore more likely
    	> to be a white male that meets the qualifications of the position.
    
    		White males are a "majority" in the sense that they
    		control most of the power and money.  Numerically, they
    		are definitely *not* a majority, so why do they keep
    		getting most of the good jobs when there are LESS of
    		them around?  
    
    	> [I hope it is clear that I am not talking factory line positions
    	> here, but advanced development engineering] 
    
    		Of course.  That was clear.  Why would white men bother
    		lining up their arguments as to why they should get
    		factory line positions?  It doesn't surprise me at all
    		that white men would feel more justified in saying that
    		while *many* people may be qualified for the lesser
    		paying jobs, only white men are usually qualified for
    		the really important (well paying) jobs.  Makes sense
    		to me.  :)
    
    	> .....And it is not that one
    	> ends up with a list of ten qualified people; 5 white males, 2 white
    	> women, 2 black males and one black female, and so a white male is
    	> chosen. No, it is more like after interviewing 20-30 people of all
    	> races and sex, you try to determine who is the least bozo. More
    	> often than not, that will end up being a white male. That is just
    	> a statistical fact and not the result of racism. 
    
    		Better to hire a white male "least bozo" than to take
    		more time and FIND a truly qualified person, right?
    		At least the "least bozo" has the white male image going 
    		for him, so he will 'fit in' if nothing else.
    
    	> ......And because of
    	> this, you are then told that you had better not hire _him_ because
    	> you _need_ a minority or a woman.
    
    		Gee, I wonder if the 'powers' that tell you that you
    		_need_ a minority or a woman might possibly have felt
    		that you made up your mind ahead of time that it wouldn't
    		be _possible_ to find a minority or a woman so you didn't
    		bother trying (and settled for a white male "least bozo" 
    		instead?)
    
    		Please don't take my razzing too seriously here, but
    		don't you see that the very attitude you are showing
    		here is the main reason WHY programs like EEO and AA
    		came into play?  Too many employers (for too many years)
    		*ASSUMED* that they would never find racial minority
    		or women candidates that would be qualified for their
    		high-paying positions, so they went into the interview
    		process with a certain "prejudice" towards those candi-
    		dates.
    
    		Programs like EEO and AA were meant to make people with
    		those attitudes try a little harder to "see" that there
    		were, in fact, qualified minorities and women candidates
    		that they were simply not able to recognize before.

    re:.73
    
	There is a mind set that believes that "only white 
    males can fill this job". 
    
    	Then there is the mind set saying lets get the best possible
    candidate.
    
    	If the boss of a group was of mind set one and hired white males
    was replaced with boss of mind set 2 and a new job opened
    and thru the interview process he happened in this case to find
    a white male most qualified, then what should he do?
    
	what are his options
    
    	1- hire the white male
    
    	2 - interview but exclude white males until you find
    		another candidate 
        		        
	Mike
    

    	RE:  .74
    
    	Why is it that most of these scenerios seem to involve the
    	white male as being the most qualified (as if that is nearly
    	always the normal state of events)??
    
    	In the real world, there are times when minority candidates
    	(including women) blow the socks off the competition.  I can
    	remember getting a job once where I beat out (fairly and
    	squarely) almost 70 white males for my second job with PBS
    	as a video engineer.  The head of Engineering at the studio
    	went out of his way to tell me that I was most assuredly NOT
    	hired as part of any quota, but that I was the most qualified
    	of all the candidates, PERIOD!
    
    	Of course, as often happens, I knew many of the other people
    	who had applied for my job and they moaned and groaned for
    	YEARS about how they had been discriminated against because
    	the job "had to go to a minority" (when that was not the case
    	at all!!!)  It was an assumption they had made based on the
    	idea that there was no way in hell that one woman could be
    	more qualified than 70 white men.
    
    	Hey, it does happen.  I wish people would stop writing scenerios
    	that assume that in the vast majority of the cases, white men
    	have the best qualifications.  (No offense to you, personally.)

    RE:.75
    
	In the case a non white male is most qualified I believe
    we both agree that that person should be hired.
    
    
    	Now what about the "rare" case where a white male happens to
    be?
    
    mike     

"Gee, hardly seems worthwhile to bother *interviewing* non_white_males, does it?

Lay off the drivel and straw horses why don't you?  You're the only one
trumpeting that attitude. 

"Why is it that most of these scenerios seem to involve the white male as being
the most qualified (as if that is nearly always the normal state of events)??" 

Because that is the case (white male is most qualified but AA/EO demands a
minority) under discussion.  If you want to talk about another case then
differentiate the two cases when you are writing so that you don't get confused.

JMB

    re .73:
    
    > (If it is a foregone conclusion that a white male will get the job, 
    > then it would be kinder to keep from wasting minority applicants' 
    > time and energy, don't you think?)     
      
    No I don't, and I don't think you can derive that from my statement.
    It is _not_ a "foregone conclusion" that a white male _will_ get
    the job. I never said that nor implied it.
    
    > White males are a "majority" in the sense that they control most of 
    > the power and money. 
    
    White males _are_ a numerical majority of college graduates with
    a BSEE, BSME, etc.
    
    > It doesn't surprise me at all that white men would feel more justified 
    > in saying that while *many* people may be qualified for the lesser
    > paying jobs, only white men are usually qualified for the really 
    > important (well paying) jobs.  Makes sense to me.  :) 
    
    lesser paying jobs usually require lesser skill and talent. Jobs
    that can be filled by anyone off the street and are required in
    large numbers (like factory line positions) should present a
    representative distribution of the population. A group of twenty
    EE and ME's is much more difficult to make representative. 
    
    > Better to hire a white male "least bozo" than to take more time and 
    > FIND a truly qualified person, right?
      
    Just how much time do you expect one to spend searching for the
    "perfect" candidate? I never said that it is better to hire the
    "white male least bozo". I said it usually ends up that one must
    choose the least bozo. The fact that there are far more white male
    applicants for engineering positions means that _probably_ the least
    bozo will be a white male. It is also true that usually the _most_
    bozo is a white male.		
    
    > Please don't take my razzing too seriously here, but don't you see
    > that the very attitude you are showing here is the main reason WHY 
    > programs like EEO and AA came into play?  Too many employers (for too 
    > many years) *ASSUMED* that they would never find racial minority
    > or women candidates that would be qualified for their high-paying 
    > positions, so they went into the interview process with a certain 
    > "prejudice" towards those candidates.
      
    I do not believe that my attitude is that it is _impossible_ to
    find a qualified minority or woman. What I am saying is that it
    is unfair to look at a statistically small sample (such as a small
    engineering group) and declare their hiring practices prejudiced
    because there are no blacks, hispanics or women in that group. That
    even dedicated and unprejudiced searching can produce a
    non-representative distribution of races. This is a simple statistical
    fact. I acknowledge that the attitude you are attributing to me 
    _is_ common. I think it is reprehensible, and I am not trying to
    defend it or apologize for it.
    
    > Programs like EEO and AA were meant to make people with those
    > attitudes try a little harder to "see" that there were, in fact, 
    > qualified minorities and women candidates that they were simply 
    > not able to recognize before.
      
    Yes, and its another case of a simplistic solution to a complex
    problem. While that may have been the _intent_ of EEO and AA, to
    those who interview with prejudices AA is simply a list of quotas
    that must be meet. And those quotas become more important than finding
    a qualified applicant.
    
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                  

    <--(.77)
    
    Jim, I very nearly hid your rx but am writing this in lieu of doing
    that.  Suzanne's comment is a perfectly legitimate use of sarcasm to
    make her point.  Your use of the word "drivel" in response, on the
    other hand, comes dangerously close to being a personal attack, and I
    would be glad if you would choose your words more carefully in future. 
    
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .78
    
    	Steve, the whole issue *is* complex.  All I was trying to point
    	out to you was that you gave a great demonstration of the attitude
    	that "it is inevitable that we will hire a white male for this
    	position" as a mindset that is adopted *before* the candidates
    	have ever been presented to the hiring manager.

    	That example is *precisely* the attitude that made EEO and AA 
    	necessary.
    	
    	It will most likely take a dissolution of prevailing attitudes
    	like that in our culture before we seen programs like EEO/AA go away.

    Reading all these notes makes me think that, despite our problems
    here in the US (well, most of us are in the US, anyhow), we have
    things a lot better than in many other places -- just so that we
    don't moan and groan *too* much about the lack of progress here!
    
    A (woman engineer) friend of mine was sent to Saudi Arabia to solve
    a major technical crisis, because she was the best qualified person
    in the company.  She solved the problem, all right, returned home,
    and declared that they could find someone else, anyone else, the
    next time something needed solving there!  She was not allowed to
    work with the male engineers at the customer site, to talk to them,
    even to walk down the street with them (I think because she is married
    but her husband, also an engineer in a different field, was not
    along on this fire-fighting trip, of course), and was forced to
    wear a veil in public!  Good grief....  Now this was about 15 years
    ago, but she has not been back there; I don't know who gets sent
    these days (this occurred before I came to DEC).
    
    Much more recently, for our fifth wedding anniversary a year and
    a half ago, Paul and I fulfilled a lifelong dream of mine by taking
    a vacation in Hong Kong (which was even more fun than I had dreamed
    about, by the way!!).  We amused ourselves one evening by picking
    up a copy of a local newspaper (printed in English) and reading about
    the news of the world of southeast Asia.  The paper happened to
    have a very large help-wanted section (probably in part because
    a lot of technically-qualified people, such as several radio amateur
    friends of ours, have left Hong Kong for other British Commonwealth
    countries where they can fairly easily get citizenship, afraid of
    what the mainland Communist government will do to ruin the economy
    when the British give up the colony in 1997).  I was astounded to
    discover that each position, from the most specialized technical
    jobs to the assembly-line jobs, specified the required sex, race,
    and age of the candidate as well as (what I would consider) bona
    fide job-related qualifications such as required degrees, years of
    experience, fluency in various languages, citizenship, etc.  ALL
    of the engineering jobs were for men between 20 and 30!  ALL of
    the assembly-line and secretarial jobs were for women under 25!
    As they say, a nice (!!!) place to visit, but I wouldn't want to
    live there!                      

re:        < Note 88.70 by DANUBE::B_REINKE "As true as water, as true as light" >
>                         -< walking in anothers shoes >-
>
>    inre .67, Rodger,
>    
>    the only thing that my white male husband inheriteed as it were
>    from his parents was large debts for college...and it is looking
>    now like that is our children's inheritance as well...
>    
>    just being white and male does not mean you were born with 
>    a silver spoon in your mouth and a red carpet at your feet,
>    more whites are poor, by shear #s than blacks in the usa...and
>    those of us who are middle class certainly do not live on some
>    kind of easy steet.

        I understand  that  Bonnie,  and  I certainly can relate to the
        plight of lower class whites being as I have seven brothers and
        sisters who were brought up that way.

        However,  the reasons for white males who are  poverty-stricken
        aren't because of discrimination of sex or color of  skin.   We
        haven't  needed constitutional amendments to allow a white male
        equal rights as we have for blacks and wimmin. 

        					Roger
        

    RE: .83
    
    	I don't believe your response is complete.  There is a great
    deal of prejudice in the U.S. but all of it is not against those
    who are protected by AA and EEO.
    
    	A white male from the 'wrong family' has no better chance of
    reaching the true mgmt heights in Boston Banking than a minority
    or woman of equal ability and background.  The banking field, at
    least in Boston, is a very exclusive club in relation to certain
    departments and managerial levels.
    
    	Prejudice is ugly, the ugliest side of people in my opinion.
    We measure people by their sex, color, national origins, college,
    prep school, high school, address, etc. ; then we measure them by
    their qualifications.
    
    	It is important, at least to me, to make every effort to understand
    why people relate to others in the ways that they do.  What issues
    or prejudices are they working?  How do they perceive their
    experiences?    
    
    Douglas

re:        < Note 88.84 by AKOV13::WILLIAMS "But words are things ..." >


>            	A white male from the 'wrong family' has no better chance of
>    reaching the true mgmt heights in Boston Banking than a minority

        How does one "look" like he/she is from the wrong family?

>            	Prejudice is ugly, the ugliest side of people in my opinion.
>    We measure people by their sex, color, national origins, college,
>    prep school, high school, address, etc. ; then we measure them by
>    their qualifications.

        One  can  hide  his/her  national origin, college, prep school,
        high school, address, etc., but one can't hide that one's  skin
        is a different color or that one is a womyn.

        I am  not  trying to belittle the other forms of prejudice, but
        they are *different*.

        					Roger

        

     
    re: .84
>       	Prejudice is ugly, the ugliest side of people in my opinion.
>    We measure people by their sex, color, national origins, college,
>    prep school, high school, address, etc. ; then we measure them by
>    their qualifications.
    
 
    	Are you implying that college has nothing to do with your
    	qualifications?  In defense realted industries can the same
    	be said for national origin?
    
    
    					- A.J.
    

    Those of you who live in New England are probably correct in stating
    that qualified candidates exist in every gender, color, and national
    origin.  Granted I have never lived there, but that area of the country
    seems to me something of a melting pot, with a good variety of all
    sorts of people at all levels. 
    
    I first became a Digital manager in such a place (not New England,
    but a place where a variety of qualified applicants was usually
    a given).  Hiring was really no problem.  Keeping a balance of
    minorities and women was easy -- we got lots of qualified minority
    candidates, and I was always able to hire the best person for the
    job and still meet my EEO goals.
    
    Then I moved to the Deep South.  I capitalize that because, much as I
    love the South, it's sort of like moving to another country.  Well,
    hiring there was a totally different story.  We would advertise for a
    job and get 100% white applicants (both male and female, but always all
    white).  Or on the rare occasion when a black applied, it was someone
    who was *very* obviously not qualified -- like maybe never seen a
    computer but "willing to learn"???  My EEO goals suddenly became
    extremely hard to attain.  I met my goals, but I had to actively search
    for minorities. And I'm not complaining about having to go out and look
    for them, 'cause that's AA -- but they were *hard* to find, and
    sometimes you just plain couldn't find one. 
    
    I'm not defending prejudice.  It's just that I learned the hard way
    that finding qualified minority candidates is not always as easy as
    some of you seem to think it is. 
    
    							Pat

    
    re. .87
    >  Or on the rare occasion when a black applied, it was someone
    >who was *very* obviously not qualified -- like maybe never seen a
    >computer but "willing to learn"???  My EEO goals suddenly became
    >extremely hard to attain.  I met my goals, but I had to actively search
    >for minorities. And I'm not complaining about having to go out and look
    >for them, 'cause that's AA -- but they were *hard* to find, and
    >sometimes you just plain couldn't find one. 
    
     Is it discrimination if when hiring from a pool of applicants a
    white person will positively get the job because there was no non-white
    applicants? 
    
    Is it discrimination if when hiring from a pool of applicants that
    is all-white a company expends extra resources (maybe to go to a
    different part of the country)  to find an equally qualified non-white
    applicant, then hire that non-white because of AA?
    
    
    		- A.J.
    

re:        < Note 88.88 by CADSE::SANCLEMENTE >


>    Is it discrimination if when hiring from a pool of applicants that
>    is all-white a company expends extra resources (maybe to go to a
>    different part of the country)  to find an equally qualified non-white
>    applicant, then hire that non-white because of AA?

        There is something to be said about these places that have "all
        white" applicants!

        				Roger

  > Is it discrimination if when hiring from a pool of applicants that is
  > all-white a company expends extra resources (maybe to go to a different
  > part of the country)  to find an equally qualified non-white applicant,
  > then hire that non-white because of AA? 
    
    We did that.  You wouldn't BELIEVE the reaction we got from most
    qualified minority applicants from other parts of the country when we
    told them the job was in Birmingham, Alabama!  Let's just say their
    interest died immediately. 
    
    							Pat

    That sort of action is exactly what AA is all about:  if your normal
    recruitment process turns up only members of the dominant group in your
    organisation (typically white males for high-status positions) then
    change the process to yield a better mix of candidates.  Once you have
    a good pool of well-qualified candidates, pick the person who will add
    the most diversity to your organisation if your organisation needs
    more diversity.
    
    						=maggie

    
    re .89, .90, .91
    
    	The point I am trying to make is this: IF a company in a specific
    
    area of the country is looking to fill a position and they select
    
    the most qualified applicant from the pool (regardless of sex or
    
    ethnic background)  then would you agree that no discrimination
    
    has taken place?   Now if that pool happens to not contain any 
    
    minorities then perhaps discrimination is taking place, but not
    
    by that company hiring someone (remember, they will hire the best
    
    applicant no matter what). Perhaps it is taking place in the
    
    high schools and colleges or somewhere else. However, forcing the company to
    
    look in other parts of the country is DISCRIMINATING against those 
    
    applicants that didn't get the free plane ride from Boston.
    
    And it is also putting an unrequired financial burden on the company.  
    
    No matter how you try to justify it, hiring someone for there race
    
    or sex is WRONG. 
    
    
    					- A.J.

    AJ, let's presume that I've hired the best qualified engineer from the
    pool of candidates produced by my help-wanted ads.  According to you,
    that's exactly how things should be and no discrimination was
    practiced, right?  Supposing I now tell you that all the candidates
    were women.  Does it still look fair to you?  Why or why not? 
    
    						=maggie 

    
    re. .94,           
    
    > AJ, let's presume that I've hired the best qualified engineer from the
    > pool of candidates produced by my help-wanted ads.  According to you,
    > that's exactly how things should be and no discrimination was
    > practiced, right?  Supposing I now tell you that all the candidates
    > were women.  Does it still look fair to you?  Why or why not? 
    

    I will assume your help wanted ads were aimed at the entire
    engineering field, .ie placed in the trade journals and local 
    newspaper, not lets say some media outlet primarily viewed by
    women.
    
                       
    If this is the case and you are telling me that you selected the
    best possible candidate then no discrimination took place.
    
    The fact that no men interviewed has nothing to do with it. Because
    if they did decide to apply and if they were the most qualified
    then you would have hired them, right?
    
    Maybe you are located in a certain part of the country where all
    men are employed as wrestlers and they can't make as much money
    working for you. 
    
    				- A.J.
                 
    

re:        < Note 88.93 by CADSE::SANCLEMENTE >


>    high schools and colleges or somewhere else. However, forcing the company to
>    
>    look in other parts of the country is DISCRIMINATING against those 
>    
>    applicants that didn't get the free plane ride from Boston.

        New  Hampshire  is  1%  black (I think).  DIGITAL is the second
        largest computer company in the world.  If it  is  important to
        DIGITAL  to  keep a racial balance amongst it's work force, but
        it is most economical for DIGITAL to expand in  New  Hampshire,
        how is DIGITAL going to attain it's goals?

        Companies  like  DIGITAL  do  more  than hire people, they also
        populate areas. If DIGITAL moves to an all-white area, they can
        be  a  great  aid  to  society  by  recruiting  people  of  all
        backgrounds to the company who will consequently  live  in  the
        area.    Before  companies like DIGITAL moved to New Hampshire,
        blacks wouldn't think of moving there. There have been articles
        in some newspapers that suggest that they still may not be welcome.

        The  point  here  seems  to  be  whether  or  not  one wants to
        continue    with    the    anti-womyn,     anti-people-of-color
        infrastructure. By advocating that companies not actively
        recruit wimmin or  people-of-color   to   areas   and
        positions   that   are traditionally     white-male-dominated
        is    allowing    the oppression that has  caused  these  groups
        not to apply for these positions to continue.   A  company like
        DIGITAL  wouldn't be as successful if it hadn't taken a leading
        role in recognizing  the  need  to  reach  out  to  wimmin  and
        people-of-color. I don't think it is discrimination, I think it
        is rectifying a very old problem.

        					Roger

>    < Note 88.96 by LDP::CARTER "Roger" >
>        New  Hampshire  is  1%  black (I think).  DIGITAL is the second
>        largest computer company in the world.  If it  is  important to
>        DIGITAL  to  keep a racial balance amongst it's work force, but
>        it is most economical for DIGITAL to expand in  New  Hampshire,
>        how is DIGITAL going to attain it's goals?

         This whole idea of "racial balance" is WRONG. Digitals only
    obligation to society is to hire the most qualified person for any
    given job. This hiring is to be done without bias to race,religion,
    sex, etc.  Expecting a company to have 52% woman, 15% black, etc.  
    just because that happens to be their given proportion in the overall
    population is simple minded.
    
 >           Companies  like  DIGITAL  do  more  than hire people, they also
 >       populate areas. If DIGITAL moves to an all-white area, they can
 >       be  a  great  aid  to  society  by  recruiting  people  of  all
 >       backgrounds to the company who will consequently  live  in  the
 >       area.    Before  companies like DIGITAL moved to New Hampshire,
 >       blacks wouldn't think of moving there. There have been articles
 >       in some newspapers that suggest that they still may not be welcome.

       DIGITAL is a for profit company. It may be a "great aid to society"
       if it chooses to be, it may not, it's the companies choice. 
       All that should be required of it is unbiased hiring. If newspapers
       suggest otherwise then there is something wrong with the attitudes
       of  some of the people who live there. Address this problem directly,
       not through AA. 
 
    >          The  point  here  seems  to  be  whether  or  not  one wants to
    >    continue    with    the    anti-womyn,     anti-people-of-color
    >    infrastructure. 
    
    		Are you saying thats what I am advocating?  I think
    the point here seems to be whether or not one wants correct the
    the problems of the past or replace them with ones own form of
    discrimination.
    
    >     By advocating that companies not actively
    >    recruit wimmin or  people-of-color   to   areas   and
    >    positions   that   are traditionally     white-male-dominated
    >    is    allowing    the oppression that has  caused  these  groups
    >    not to apply for these positions to continue. 
    
     	 I kinda thought the problem was women (not wimmin) or
    people-or-color WERE APPLYING  for the jobs but were NOT BEING ACCEPTED
    because of discrimination.  
    
    
    >    A  company like
    >    DIGITAL  wouldn't be as successful if it hadn't taken a leading
    >    role in recognizing  the  need  to  reach  out  to  wimmin  and
    >    people-of-color. I don't think it is discrimination, I think it
    >    is rectifying a very old problem.
    
    	These quotas effect entry level positions. The people applying
        for these jobs most likely have never experienced the kind of
        discrimination their parents did. You can't rectify what happend
    	10, 20 years ago by scr*ing some college kid today.
    
    	Correct what was wrong. DO NOT compensate on the backs of the
        innocent.


                 	- A.J.
    

    Dear A.J.,
    
    I'm sure that you can get your point across without telling people that
    what they think is "WRONG" or "simple minded". Members of this
    conference are willing to listen to and discuss your opinions; please
    pay those members the same courtesy. 
    
    Liz Augustine 
    Womannotes comoderator

    re: .97 
    
    People who grow up on the outside of the power structure often
    don't have the information to apply for jobs, let alone be
    qualified for them.  

    When I was growing up broke in the rural west, I didn't even know
    that the job I presently hold existed.  I don't mean the exact
    position, either, I mean the job of "technical writing".  The only
    white-collar jobs I knew about were lawyer, doctor, salesman,
    college professor, advertising executive, airline pilot,
    architect, and banker. 

    I couldn't prepare myself to be qualified to start a job like this
    because I didn't know it was there to be prepared for. By the time
    I figured out that corporations had jobs that people like me could
    get, I was already several years behind the ordinary middle-class
    white males who grew up knowing that assembly-line workers have
    managers, and personnel directors, and people who keep track of
    how many circuit breakers or whatever were assembled on this
    shift, and people who make sure the assembly line has all the
    wires and clips and pliers to assemble circuit breakers, and
    people who design the circuit breakers, and people who set up the
    machines to make the circuit breakers, and people who make sure
    the circuit breakers work, and people who write pamphlets telling
    users how to wire the circuit breakers into appliances, and other
    people writing brochures to persuade the appliance makers to use
    our circuit breaker instead of theirs, and people designing
    appliances, and people making tools the appliance-designers use to
    design appliances, and . . . 
     
    This sounds like a simple, obvious, thing, but it's not.  I was
    intelligent and ambitious and I didn't figure it out until I was a
    freshman in college.  I have friends back home who say, "Gee, if I
    had known that, I could have been . . ." or "Is it too late to
    learn how to repair computers?  I'm sick of selling underwear at
    Penney's." 
    
    So Digital continues advertising in the computer industry
    newspapers, and it gets qualified people who know about computers
    and industry newspapers already, and the poor whites and the
    blacks and the other people who don't know these things exist
    don't even get the chance to learn that they can prepare for these
    jobs, so we go on being motel maids and night-shift cleaners. 

    Breaking this cycle requires active intervention.  People who grow
    up outside the power structure don't know that there is something
    there to know about.  It's to Digital's advantage to go outside
    its world and make itself known to people who haven't heard of us
    -- no doubt there's an air-conditioning repairman out there who
    would have made consulting engineer by now if she knew what
    college to apply to in order to learn electronic engineering. 
    
    --bonnie

    If attitude changes are not made, and made apparent, by "for profit"
    companies, all the changes made in the public sector don't mean
    squat.
    
    DIGITAL also touts itself as a company which cares about the community
    at large. As such, it really needs to show a willingness to seek
    and employ good candidates of "minority" status, else it doesn't
    put its money where its corporate mouth is.
    
    --DE
    

    AJ, BonnieR (.99) said it better than I could.  Advertising in the
    "usual" media will continue to tap from the "usual" pool --typically
    the white males who have found those media a useful place to look.
    Anyone who knows that they could get a more diverse pool of applicants
    by advertising in other places --*and chooses not to*-- is indeed
    committing unfair discrimination.
    
    						=maggie 

    re :.98, .99, .100
    
    	I would have to agree with .98, the reason being it isn't the
    responsibility of a "profit" searching company to educate the masses.
    
    	AJ is trying to make the point that discrimination in any way
    shape or form is not right, and we as a company should not use
    it to justify past injustices.
    
    	I believe that the people actually being "helped" and those
    being "hindered" are from a generation of people that were not
    being discriminated against originally. The target group for these
    quotas are new hires - recent college grads - and these people
    haven't been discriminated against. 
    

	Mike

    re .101
    
    	I don't think by only advertising in the globe's help wanted
    section on sundays is unfair. I think I can generically say if you
    want a job look at the help wanted section of the news paper.
    
    	If you want a job in another part of the country then get a
    news paper from there and look.
    
	mike - not understanding .101
    

    RE: .102
    
    1. New hires <> recent college grads
    
    2. Are you really saying that recent college grads have not/are
    not discriminated against?
    
    3. Are you really saying that discrimination existed for people
    of some certain age group, but does not exist now???
    
    --DE
    

	RE:    < Note 88.104 by VINO::EVANS "Never tip the whipper" >


>    1. New hires <> recent college grads
>   
    
    	True new hires aren't always new college grads BUT
    all new college grads are recent hires. Any quota is applied
    to a new hire is applied to a recent college grad. 
    
    	This target group is NOT the group that was originally
    doing the discriminating that caused the quotas to be created. 
     
>    2. Are you really saying that recent college grads have not/are
>    not discriminated against?
>    
	In my experience - as a recent college hire - I would say
    yes. However in my own experience I was discriminated against while
    attempting to apply to an ivy league school. The reason - after
    a weeks worth of harassment on my part to the director of admissions
    - was that I was a white male from the northeast. 
    
        >    3. Are you really saying that discrimination existed for people
>    of some certain age group, but does not exist now???
    
    And again YES, I think the generation before me - age group 35 and
    older has experience discrimination, but not my peers - age group
    under 27, where 27 - 35 is a grey zone.
    
    mike
    

    Mike,
    
    Those new, white, male college graduates have parents.  In many
    cases where those parents paid for those nice college educations
    that gave these nice young men their current job opportunities, you
    will find that the income of the white male father, working in an
    era without significant job opportunities for women or any persons
    color, is what made that "equal" education possible.
    
    							Ann B.

    RE: .106
    
    	I this should be better qualified. Yes I went to college and
    yes my parents helped me and yes I have loans up to my eyeballs.
    
    	And yes my sisters have the same opportunity and yes I have
    many friends from school - minorities - that had a much less costly
    college career due to the college giving them more in terms on student
    loans and grants and scholarships because their family couldn't
    afford the whole college tuition. And yes I have other minority
    friends that have parents that paid the full way and yes my parents
    now doesn't have any savings because of their desire to see 
    their kids go thru college.
    
    	I think you are over generalizing the white male family
    
    
    	mike
    
    

    <--(.103)
    
    Mike, what message would it convey to you if the only place you could
    find adverts for (and I'm guessing here based on your nodename) CAD
    software jobs was in women's newspapers?  I'll bet one or both of:
    they're really interested in hiring women; they're discriminating
    against men.  Right?  Well, what happens if the ad is in a general
    newspaper?  Can you tell what their attitude is?  I can't, and so I
    fall back on the rest of my world-knowledge...which tells me that my
    chances for getting the job will be very different depending on whether
    that general-readership newspaper is the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the
    Boston Globe, or the Dallas Times-Herald.  Make more sense?
    
    						=maggie

    re .108:
    
    You lost me, Maggie. 
    
    > my chances for getting the job will be very different depending on 
    > whether that general-readership newspaper is the Minneapolis
    > Star-Tribune, the Boston Globe, or the Dallas Times-Herald. 
    
    True, if I live in Minneapolis, I may have a hard time applying
    for a job that was only advertised in the Boston Globe, *IF* I only
    read the Minneapolis paper. I don't understand the point though.
    
    Presumably if I live in Minneapolis and only look in the Minneapolis
    paper for jobs, it is because I am only interested in jobs in the
    Minneapolis (or Minnesota) area. If I were interested in moving
    elsewhere, I would try to get a paper from that area. I just do
    not see what is discriminatory about this. You seem to be implying
    that advertising in the _Globe_ is just as restrictive as advertising
    only in _Ms._ 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                                                 

        
re: < Note 88.105 by CADSE::SHANNON "look behind you" >

>    And again YES, I think the generation before me - age group 35 and
>    older has experience discrimination, but not my peers - age group
>    under 27, where 27 - 35 is a grey zone.

   mike

        
        I am  27  and  I  have  experienced  discrimination! And I will
        continue to experience discrimination and prejudice all my life.
        I believe that a major reason that wimmin  and  people-of-color
        aren't  making  the  progress people seem to think we should be
        making is because of statements like the one above *by* someone
        who is unaffected by the prejudice.

        Why  is it that White Males can tell wimmin and people-of-color
        that we don't face discrimination? This same argument is  being
        used  to stop the passage of ERA ; men are telling wimmin that
        they  haven't  been discriminated against, or don't need
        protection against it! Who should know? 

	Bonnie, Maggie, Liz, Dawn and some others,

        I have been extremely impressed by your responses.  I  hope you
        all  make  it  to upper level management someday (if you're not
        there already) 'cause we need people like you.

        				Roger

	RE: several

	In the communications (interpersonal not techncial) class I took
       last semester we were studying social change and how it happens.
       One constant through the ages has always been "the power group
       never gives up it's privileges without a fight".

       I like hearing all the "white male" complaints of discrimination.
       I don't know about the rest of you but when I go to an all system
       managers meeting here in CX out of between 40-50 people there are
       about 5 women and a couple of folks of oriental background. I
       don't think you boys have too much to worry about in the way of
       us taking away your right to jobs. I'll bet if I went to a
       manufacturing assemblers meeting the stats would be reversed.

       liesl

       (and of the women, I'm the only blonde, talk about sticking out
       like a sore thumb) :*)

    re: .111
    
    "statements. . .*by* someone who is unaffected by the prejudice."
    
    Personal opinion only (tho' I s'pect I could make a passable
    argument on logical grounds. . .)
    
    I think it's worse than that, Roger.  I think it's a matter of
    many people believing that the prejudices they hold towards others
    don't affect them (and, more often than not, that they don't hold
    any prejudices).  I believe such people are unaware of just how
    badly those prejudices *do* hurt them and all people on this tiny, 
    void-surrounded stone we're all stuck on (Scotty?. . .we need 
    those engines. . .we're running out of time. . .Scotty?. . .)
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  I am expressly *not* referring any individual in this or other
    notes (in truth, I've only been skimming this one; Roger's remark
    simply caught my eye and prompted me to think (again) about "who's
    affected by prejudice").
    

""the power group never gives up it's privileges without a fight""

It is worse then that.  Psychological experiments indicate that an enlightened
individual in a power group who is interested 'sharing the gravy', will be
prevented by the power group from doing so.  White males are not all bad; they
have the same spread of good-bad individuals as any other group, but the group
dynamics of being in the group in power prevent them from acting out their
better impulses.  So it's not that individuals will not give up their privileges
without a fight, but groups will not.  Remind me to tell you what I think of
group mentalities...

JMB 

Ann, SM, have you heard of this?

    WHo says that white males are NOT affected by discrimination????
    Why do we (PEOPLE) continue to point fingers!
    PEOPLE are discriminated against by PEOPLE! DAMN!

RE: .111 

        
>        I am  27  and  I  have  experienced  discrimination! And I will
>        continue to experience discrimination and prejudice all my life.
>        I believe that a major reason that wimmin  and  people-of-color
>        aren't  making  the  progress people seem to think we should be
>        making is because of statements like the one above *by* someone
>        who is unaffected by the prejudice.

	If you re read .105 you will see where I have had it happen
    to me, I don't know what happened to you so it makes it difficult
    to comment on the above statement.
    
>            Why  is it that White Males can tell wimmin and people-of-color
>        that we don't face discrimination? This same argument is  being
>        used  to stop the passage of ERA ; men are telling wimmin that
>        they  haven't  been discriminated against, or don't need
>        protection against it! Who should know? 

    	The point that I am trying to make is that when a person 
    - supervisor - is looking to hire a new person into a job, 
    the only thing that should be considered is who is the most 
    qualified, and nothing else.
    
RE: .112  
    

>       I like hearing all the "white male" complaints of discrimination.
>       I don't know about the rest of you but when I go to an all system
>       managers meeting here in CX out of between 40-50 people there are
>       about 5 women and a couple of folks of oriental background. I
>       don't think you boys have too much to worry about in the way of
>       us taking away your right to jobs. I'll bet if I went to a
>       manufacturing assemblers meeting the stats would be reversed.

	    I do not understand your point?
    
	My point as stated above is hire the best qualified individual
    for a job. I am not worried about you taking a job away from me
    but I do worry when I don't even get a spot at that job
    
    
    mike 
    

    re: several back.
    
    When a group (particularly a group in power) has a "good deal",
    and they want to keep the "good deal" (as most people who have a
    "good deal" do), although there may be others who should also share
    in the "good deal" or the power, the people in power often convince
    themselves that those without power or with a lesser deal either
    do not need the better deal, or could not properly handle the power
    (we should handle it for them, it's bettter that way, we have their
    best interests in mind, after all)....I think it's a form of (heavy
    sociological term here) groupthink.  Groupthink is when a group
    of people can get together who share something in common, and convince
    themselves that they are doing the right thing - by both fortifying
    one anothers' confidence by reaffirming their goals, or by quietly
    sweeping alternate/nonconformist opinions under the rug.  Governments
    get into groupthink fairly often, and the outcome is often disastrous.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re the last half dozen, lets talk about the problem logically and
      look for possible solutions, not cry on each others shoulders
      and get no where.
    
    re: .112
    > I don't think you boys have to much to worry about in the way
    >  us taking away your jobs.
     
    	If you girls happen to be more qualified then you deserve the
        job over me. understand?
    
    re: .113
    > I think it's a matter of many people believing that the prejudices
    > they hold towards others don't affect them.
    
    	This includes of course everyone that thinks all white men are just
    	out to preserve "the White Male power structure".
    
    re: .114
    > Psychological experiments indicate that an enlightened individual
    > in a power group who is interested in "sharing" will be prevented
    > from doing so.
    
      I have made my attitude towards discrimination of any type very
    clear: Jobs go the the best qualified candidate, period. Scholarships
    go to the smartest student, period. Nothing is done based on race
    or sex. Now for the 1 million dollar question, Do you consider me
    to be enlightened? If not why?  Also would you consider me a threat
    in management?
    
    				- A.J. 
    

    Well, now, there's individual discrimination, which has certainly
    become unfashionable in New England, and there's structural,
    institutional discrimination, problems that are built into the
    world we grew up in. 
    
    I've been discriminated against because I'm female, poor, and from
    a rural Western state. I've had advantages, too -- the biggest one
    being that I'm white. 

    I wasted a lot of time in my first few years at Digital just
    learning how to function in an organization, time that could have
    been spent solving problems.  Big businesses don't exist where I'm
    from.  I had no cultural background to deal with my team being
    only part of the picture, of having to depend on people over whom
    I had no control or influence to do a job that could cause my job
    to succeed or fail.  I had to learn all that from scratch; Neil
    knew it from growing up. 
            
    I've sat in meetings where my opinion was taken seriously while
    the comments of a much more informed and articulate black woman
    were not.  When I switched to her side, suddenly people started
    listening -- to me, not to her.  If you asked the people there,
    I'm sure they'd tell you it had nothing to do with prejudice, that
    I had expressed the argument more clearly and effectively. And
    perhaps I did.  I'm white, too, I know how to talk to other white
    people.  The woman of color doesn't know those rules.
    
    The same is true of many women in business.  The men learned "the
    rules of the game."  But few women played little league or high
    school football, and never had a chance to learn the prevailing US
    metaphor of competition and teamwork. And it's no individual's
    fault.  [A successful woman I know gave me the best advice I ever
    had about success in business:  "Learn to play poker."] 

    There's the problem of even knowing about jobs.  An earlier note
    said, and I paraphrase, "If you wanted a job in Boston, why didn't
    you read the Boston _Globe_? Well, I didn't know Boston had jobs
    and I hadn't heard of the _Globe_ until I already had my DEC job.
    It may be critically important to the survival of New England but
    it's not very worrisome to the wheat ranchers and dairy farmers of
    Bozeman, Montana. 
    
    And I don't think DEC's purpose of making a profit means we
    shouldn't be concerned about structural discrimination.  In order
    to keep making a profit, we have to keep making quality computer
    equipment, and to make quality computer equipment, we need good,
    hard-working, intelligent people.  Going out of our way to develop
    a larger pool of qualified applicants who are trained in the ways
    of business as well as the nitty-gritty of their field will
    benefit us in the long run.
    
    --bonnie

    Well, I supposedly fit into that category of non-discriminated against
    college hires.  I'm 23 years old and have only been in the "working
    world" for about two years and I have a list about a mile long of all
    the times I have been discriminated against in that short two years.  I
    agree with you about hiring practices,  I believe anyone hired in
    recent years for an engineering position has not been discriminated
    against, men or women white or black.  But it's what happens after they
    get hired that counts. You would really have a hard time convincing me
    that white-male engineers have a hard time finding a job because of
    discriminatory practices.  My white-male husband had no trouble finding
    his engineering job and neither have I.  He has had no discrimination
    problems in his two years of work but I have - I wonder why?  Could it
    be because I'm a woman.  Naw,  nobody discriminates against women under
    age 27!  Yes I'm being sarcastic because the discrimination against
    women and minorities has not ended and I am real wary of any white male
    that tries to tell me otherwise. 

    Another thing that has to be remembered, anybody can fill hiring quotas
    but they have to be non-discriminatory in the rest of their practices
    to keep the "un-welcomed" minorities there. Digital is not the whole
    world - working here for the past 8 months has been wonderful.  There
    is a wide variety of people from all walks of life - Its not like that
    everywhere!  The last company I worked for was disgusting in there
    attitudes towards women.  Men took credit for women's work, women were
    underpaid, sexual harrassment went un-punished etc.  Out of the 5 women
    engineers I worked with there, 4 of them have left.  I wonder why?  To
    have children perhaps - No they all came to DIGITAL.  I'd be more than
    happy to list all the examples of discrimination against the women but
    we could be here all day. 


    Suzanne 


    

  RE: .118

  >      I have made my attitude towards discrimination of any type very
  >    clear: Jobs go the the best qualified candidate, period. Scholarships
  >    go to the smartest student, period. Nothing is done based on race
  >    or sex. 

  I think most people around here agree that a job should never go to an
  unqualified person under any circumstances.  And I think few would argue
  against giving the job to the best candidate.  

  But suppose the candidates are equal in terms of meeting the job
  requirements.  Some of us are saying that there is nothing wrong with
  using gender and color criteria (the same criteria used to discriminate
  against women and blacks for many years) to even up the score to the
  point where the gender/black proportions in the workplace match those
  in the general population. 

  As I said in V1 of this file, it's all very well for people to
  (finally!) agree that it is unfair to make some people run a footrace
  with one foot in a bucket.  But it rings hollow when the people who are
  already two laps ahead say, "Now that things are fair, I'll just keep
  this two-lap lead."
 
  JP

    RE: 121
    
    Well said, John! I've been trying to find a way to say exactly that,
    and you've gone and done it!
    
    Thanks,
    
    --Dawn
    

    <--(.110)
    
    Sorry for that, Steve...it looked perfectly clear t'me ;')
    
    My point was that an advert in the local general-readership paper is
    not necessarily non-discriminatory.  If that paper is the Dallas
    Times-Herald then blacks, "mexicans", and women generally do not find
    it a useful source for professional positions because the people who
    advertise there are not necessarily interested in giving serious
    consideration to non-white-male applicants.  It's a fact of life down
    there that a woman or a black or someone with a spanish surname learns
    the hard way, and that white males have no need to learn at all. Anyone
    who is interested in being fair and isn't terminally naive soon learns
    that the way to attract qualified non-white-male candidates is to
    advertise in places other than just the "usual" ones.
    
    						=maggie
     

        Most of these notes show a great deal of sensitivity  to the
        issue of discrimination based on racism and sexism.   These
        replies prove what value a diversity of opinions can add  to a
        group, corporation, etc..

        					Roger

        

re: .120

>    Well, I supposedly fit into that category of non-discriminated against
>    college hires.  I'm 23 years old and have only been in the "working
>    world" for about two years and I have a list about a mile long of all
>    the times I have been discriminated against in that short two years.
	
	Unfortunetly discrimination still exists and we need to work
	towards weeding it out.		


>     DIGITAL is not the whole world - working here for the past 8 
>     months has been wonderful. 


	I'll bet that "mile long" list of times you were discriminated against
	doesn't contain anything from the last 8 months.  Thing is
	AA applies to DEC as well as other companies. I don't agree
	that quotas are the answer to problem for any company. But 
	will any of you agree they are MOST wrong and inappropriate when
	used in company were instances of discrmination are very rare.


>    I believe anyone hired in
>    recent years for an engineering position has not been discriminated
>    against, men or women white or black. 

	Except, of course any white male college grads  who may have been bumped
	to fill some quota.


>    Naw,  nobody discriminates against women under
>    age 27!  Yes I'm being sarcastic because the discrimination against
>    women and minorities has not ended and I am real wary of any white male
>    that tries to tell me otherwise. 

	I thought you just said " anyone hired in recent years for an 
	engineering position has not been discriminated against, men 
	or women white or black "

	Actually I am not saying it's ended, I am saying by supporting
	quotas your simply replacing one kind of discrimination with your
	own personal brand.

>    Another thing that has to be remembered, anybody can fill hiring quotas
>    but they have to be non-discriminatory in the rest of their practices
>    is a wide variety of people from all walks of life - Its not like that
>    everywhere!

	I agree, but why are quotas applied to DIGITAL? As far as I can
	tell no discrimantion towards women or minorites takes place anywhere
	within the company. Seems like the perfect place to let a principal 
	like "MOST qualified person gets the job" work. Agree??

				-A.J.
                                 

re: .121

  >I think most people around here agree that a job should never go to an
  >unqualified person under any circumstances.  And I think few would argue
  >against giving the job to the best candidate.  
  >But suppose the candidates are equal in terms of meeting the job
  >requirements.  Some of us are saying that there is nothing wrong with
  >using gender and color criteria (the same criteria used to discriminate
  >against women and blacks for many years) to even up the score to the
  >point where the gender/black proportions in the workplace match those
  >in the general population. 

	There is two major problems with this as I see it.

	1. If you are making a list of criterion by which to judge
	   candidates and you make this list sufficiently detailed
	   you will never have 2 canididates that are completely
	   equal. In which case you give the job to the most qualifed.
    	   What your talking about is a SHORT list where the last 
    	   two items are color and gender.

	2. The "gender/black proportions" of people with engineering
	   degrees is NOT THE SAME as that in the "general population".


>  As I said in V1 of this file, it's all very well for people to
>  (finally!) agree that it is unfair to make some people run a footrace
>  with one foot in a bucket.  But it rings hollow when the people who are
>  already two laps ahead say, "Now that things are fair, I'll just keep
>  this two-lap lead."
 
	When quotas are enforced which population sample is it being 
	applied to?  I think it's the entry level college grads. Since
	when are these people "two laps" ahead of everyone else?
	Alot of you seem to feel that this 21 year old white male college
	grad should pay for the sins of previous generations. I don't
    	think any of you have any right to me mad at them. 
    	THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

			A.J.

    AJ, it is very easy to detect whether there's unfair discrimination
    taking place at DEC:  check the distribution of people at various
    levels in the company.  If you can, get the EEO Compliance reports for
    the various organisations.  What will you find?  Either there are very
    few really competent women or members of minority groups hired at DEC
    or there is discrimination going on today.  DEC is better than
    practically anywhere else, but it's far from perfect.  It's up to all
    of *us* to make sure that the problem gets steadily smaller, and we
    can't do that by ignoring facts.
    
    						=maggie 

RE:    < Note 88.127 by MOSAIC::TARBET >


>    AJ, it is very easy to detect whether there's unfair discrimination
>   taking place at DEC:  check the distribution of people at various
>    levels in the company.  If you can, get the EEO Compliance reports for
>   the various organisations.  What will you find?  Either there are very
>   few really competent women or members of minority groups hired at DEC
>   or there is discrimination going on today.  DEC is better than
>   practically anywhere else, but it's far from perfect.  It's up to all
>   of *us* to make sure that the problem gets steadily smaller, and we
>   can't do that by ignoring facts.
    
 	the point of discussion is at the entry level professional job.
    Not vice presidents, not site managers , not board of chairmen.
    
	Entry level people are not at that level. 
    
    	in this line

>   the various organisations.  What will you find?  Either there are very
>   few really competent women or members of minority groups hired at DEC
>   or there is discrimination going on today.  DEC is better than

    
    	this is an interesting point but vague, can you be more specific?
    
    
    Also about adversiting 
    
	I again need a clearer view of what you mean. If I were looking
    for a job I would look to where that job is the most likely tobe
    thus for high tech, mass, california, north carolina to name a few.
    
    If I wanted to do something else like - who knows - be a lumberjack
    I would look out west ?? maybe I would find something maybe not.
    
    But it is my responsibility to myself that I search for the job
    I don't expect a job to be handed to me.
    
    mike
        
    

    	RE:  .128
    
    	Mike, I don't believe there is a person here who expects to
    	have a job "handed to" him/her either.  I find the use of
    	this term in reference to minorities offensive.
    
    	As someone who is over the age of 27 (and has been in technical
    	jobs since my junior year of college in 1974,) I don't expect
    	to be at entry level, thanks anyway, nor do I think that we
    	should have to resign ourselves to the fact that white males
    	have such an advantage over the rest of us that it is unreason-
    	able for us (over 27) to EVER expect to significantly increase our 
    	numbers in the highest-paid jobs (and that efforts to help us
    	attain the *opportunities* to do so are immoral.)
    
    	When it comes to deciding who is more qualified, a lot of the
    	variables are highly intangible.  It is highly likely that you
    	are assuming that women and racial minorities get *much* more
    	assistance from AA programs than we actually receive.
    
    	If only you could try working for 5 years as a woman or another
    	minority, but since you can't, you may (unfortunately) find
    	it necessary to allow that people who actually *do* belong to
    	minorities are more knowledgeable than you are about the kind
    	of treatment we receive (and I can assure you that I know of
    	NO ONE who has had a career handed to her/him.)

    	I request that you be very careful before you continue to throw
    	around phrases that imply that minorities have jobs "handed"
    	to us.  The vast, vast majority of us have worked our butts
    	off for what we have (and EVEN SO, we can't open a conference
    	without receiving insulting implications that we had our jobs
    	HANDED to us.)  That is the kind of discriminatory attitude
    	that many of us STILL HAVE TO FACE in the workplace (yes, EVEN
    	AT DEC!)  Even in notes.  Even in a file like this.  

    	Why don't you just give it a rest for awhile.  We didn't invent
    	AA and should not be in the position of being held personally
    	accountable for it to YOU in a notesfile where we work.  Ok?

    The handed a job comment is in reference to advertising
    
    I didn't mean it in the light I believe you read it in.
    
    What I was trying to say is that to get ahead you have to make an
    effort. That means actively looking in job markets to find the job
    you want. 
    
>        Also about adversiting 
>    
>	I again need a clearer view of what you mean. If I were looking
>    for a job I would look to where that job is the most likely tobe
>    thus for high tech, mass, california, north carolina to name a few.
>    
>    If I wanted to do something else like - who knows - be a lumberjack
>    I would look out west ?? maybe I would find something maybe not.
>    
>    But it is my responsibility to myself that I search for the job
>    I don't expect a job to be handed to me.
>    
    
 	the comment was made some notes earlier about where jobs were
    advertised that is what I am refering to. If a compan in the northeast
    puts and ad in the largest northeast - new england in this case
    - newspaper they are fairly advertising.
    
    Once into the company people go up the ladder by there own skills
    and talents - which is fair. The people who are the brightest and
    most motivasted should go up the ladder fastest.
    
    You govern your own destiny after you enter the company.
    
    I hope you are not insinuating that even after you got in you were
    denied by higher ups .
    
    mike   
	

    	RE:  .130
    
    	Mike, you don't honestly believe that "getting a job" is the
    	only place where discriminatory practices can strike, do you?
    	(Did you think that the only difficult part about being a
    	minority is getting "in the door" and that everything is
    	sweetness and light once a person is hired?)
    
    	There are a million and one ways that employers and co-workers
    	can let a minority employee know that s/he "doesn't fit in"
    	because of gender/skin_color/etc. and/or that they *resent* the fact
    	that the individual is part of a group for whom special provisions
    	have been made to insure that s/he is provided opportunities
    	(even if the individual her/himself is *highly* qualified for the
    	particular job that s/he is doing.)
    
    	Do you honestly believe that this sort of thing never happens
    	in DEC at all?   It does.  Look around you in NOTES alone!

    in re .130
    
    yes! exactly that! there is definitely discrimination even
    in Dec and Dec is one of the best when it comes to moving up!
    We are not talking about only discrimination in hiring. 
    
    Have you ever heard of the glass ceiling? It is a common expression
    referring to the very very small number of women who make it
    past a certain managerial level?
    
    How many women vps are there versis men for example?
    
    Bonnie

	And then there's being held accountable for ALL other women.
	If one of us makes a dumb mistake it's like we condemn all
	women. If I'm an A**hole it's because I am but there's a lot of
	men out there that take that as all women must be a**holes. When
	some guy is an a**hole it's just himself he condemns. 

	It's just like being told I have a "strong personality" so if 
	I'm having a problem with someone it must be my fault. Funny how
	both myself and the other highly visible female system manager
	here are both said to have "strong personalities" but none of the
	equally strident male system managers are characterized this way.
	We figure "strong personality" is a euphemism for b*tch. Well,
	I probably am sometimes. But not any more than the males are. 
	liesl

    re: .131, .132
    
    so you agree with me
    
    we should always give the new job to the most qualified candidate
    no exceptions no special cases no discrimination
    
    	finally
    
    	mike

>> < Note 88.134 by CADSE::SHANNON "look behind you" >


>>    re: .131, .132
    
>>    so you agree with me
    
>>    we should always give the new job to the most qualified candidate
>>    no exceptions no special cases no discrimination
    
>>    	finally
    
>>    	mike

please explain how you drew this conclusion from these notes. i do not 
see it at all. 

thanks,

jenny

    since there is discrimination at all levels everywhere
    if we only chose the best - most qualified - candidate for the job
    then we don't have to worry about discrimination.
    
    since the candidate would only be rated on their merits and nothing
    that makes them a candidate for discrimination.
    
    
    m

    Eagles' note reminds me of something that used to happen several
    years back. I was the only woman in my group, and we used to have
    meetings with other groups. We'd always have a break during the
    meetings, and my boss would always go into the men's room (followed
    by the other members of my group). And I'd hear him say as the door
    would slam shut "How do you think the meeting's going?" The break
    was an opportunity to plan strategies for the second half of the
    meeting.
    
    Failure to include me on the team? Yes. Failure to share information?
    Yes. Discrimination? Certainly. And yet my boss thought he "understood"
    issues around women in the workplace. Interestingly, this same boss
    said to me a while ago that he was glad that I'd done so well; he was
    originally sure that I'd never make it in a business environment.
    Perhaps he expected me to thank him for his help; but I wasn't feeling
    very gracious that day.
    
    Liz 

        One more example of discrimination is how Quayle could have his
        father make a call to prevent him from going to Vietnam.   They
        said   that   happened   a   lot.    But,  I  wonder  how  many
        people-of-color had that type of pull? I'll bet NONE! 

        I'm not  saying  all  white males did it, but of the people that
        did get away with it, they were all white males. Therefore,
        while  these  white  males  were  able  to  advance  themselves
        economically, educationally, etc.., people-of-color were getting
        killed.

        That old-boy network still  exists  today;  everywhere  we  go.
        People-of-color  and  wimmin  are  seldom part of that network.
        Again, I'm not saying that all white males are part of it,  but
        the  ones that are part of it are white males. 

	And then,  someone  like  Quayle will point to the people-of-color and
        wimmin and ask, "Why haven't you progressed?" as if  we've  all
        been given the same treatment all of our lives.

        					Roger

    	RE:  .134
    
    	> so you agree with me
    
    	> finally
    
    	Oddly enough, you are absolutely right.  I think that the best
    	person should get the job, regardless.
    
    	Of course, you and I *also* need to agree that there is more
    	than one way to guage who is the "best person" for any given
    	job (and that the criteria has necessarily *changed* in the
    	past 20 years from the old practice of strictly valuing traits
    	that were most likely to be found almost exclusively in white
    	males.)
    
    	For example, if I were to see two candidates who were fairly
    	level and I then discovered that one of the candidates earned
    	his/her education (and career) while facing nearly impossible odds,
    	I would tend to be more interested in the person who had crossed
    	the greater number of obstacles to get where s/he is today.

    	Also, if the candidate showed an extraordinary amount of
    	initiative and career progress for his/her time in grade, I would 
    	rate that as being more important (in some situations) than extra 
    	experience *and* training within the company.
    
    	In our group, we hired a white male (who had significantly less
    	experience and total amount of training than *ALL* of the other
    	candidates being interviewed) because he showed extraordinary
    	promise in the areas that we needed most.  He has succeeded
    	in living up to the potential that our group originally saw in
    	him, but I'm sure that if he had been someone *other* than a 
    	white male, it would have *APPEARED* (to the sort of folks who are
    	obsessed by such things) that he had been given the job because
    	of some sort of "quota" (and that several other persons had been
    	discriminated against.)   I mean, it would have been obvious,
    	right?  To *some* people, it would have been.
    
    	As an aside, it might interest you to know that some groups within DEC
    	actually DESIGN REQS that are to be used as "development" positions
    	(meaning that they don't NEED/WANT someone who is an expert now,
    	but rather someone who can "grow" into the position with time
    	and effort.)  And, guess what?  White males sometimes get THESE
    	jobs, too -- (they are NOT set up specifically for minorities but
    	rather because the group may already be "top-heavy" with people at
    	the high end and have a need for people who can LEARN and BENEFIT
    	from the experience of the current experts.)  Sometimes white
    	males are put in the position of LEARNING and BENEFITING from
    	resident experts who happen to be minorities.  And Digital seems
    	only too glad to provide even white males with this sort of excellent
    	opportunity to grow (technically *and* culturally.)  
    
    	What an outrageous concept, eh?  I have seen this happen many
    	times since I've been in DEC, and I assume it happens because
    	managers are rated on their ability to develop employees (and
    	yeah, because Digital is primarily a PEOPLE COMPANY and not
    	just a computer sweat shop.)  It is also likely because Digital has a 
    	corporate policy of VALUING the different kinds of people who make up
    	our diverse culture (and recognizes that there is more to running
    	a computer company than setting up some sort of arbitrary measuring
    	device that doesn't take into account things like diversity, 
    	enthusiasm and the kind of perseverance that it takes to overcome 
    	the tremendous obstacles that are often present when a minority 
    	candidate makes the decision to become educated and/or to make a
    	difference in our society.)

    	You and I agree if you are willing to admit that hiring processes
    	are seldom cut and dried enough to say that the "best" candidate
    	can only be determined in one narrowly_defined_way (and we agree
    	if you are *also* ready to admit that YOU are not the best judge
    	of what the final measuring criteria should be for any given position.)

    	RE:  .141
    
    	> I _am_ the best judge of what the measuring criteria should
    	> be for people who work in support positions of support of
    	> my job.
    
    	This assertion could well be challenged if, for example, you
    	felt that white men were "meant" for certain kinds of jobs while
    	women and racial minorities were "meant" for lesser jobs (and
    	set your 'measuring criteria' to be consistent with that belief.)
    
    	This is not meant to imply that you actually feel that way.
    	(It is just meant as an example where even the people closest
    	to the hiring process could be acting with impaired judgment.)

	RE:  .143

    	>  If the people involved in the hiring process are instructed
        > how to evaluate potential hires without bias, would you abolish
        > AA and hiring quotas?
    
    	    First off, in the fourteen years that I've been involved
    	    in technical jobs, I've only seen hiring quotas present
    	    once.  In that one instance, the percentage of women hired for
    	    purely technical jobs went from 0% to 15%.  In every other 
    	    group I've ever worked for, INCLUDING DEC, I've never seen the
    	    percentage get much higher than that (although I've seen
    	    it a LOT lower.)
    
    	    In my *specific* rank/job_title in DEC, there are so few women
    	    and racial minorities in this particular area of F.S. that
    	    no one I know will even hazard a *guess* as to how few of
    	    us have arrived at this level.  No hiring quotas are involved.
    
    	    If the showing of women and racial minorities in SOME technical
    	    areas (even in a company like DEC) is still this low twenty
    	    years after the Civil Rights and Women's Movements, then
    	    either AA has been largely unused/ineffective or else the 
    	    percentages would have been worse without it.

    	    In my personal opinion, the entire issue of equal opportunity
    	    is too complex to be solved by one single "If we do xxxx,
            then everything will be completely OK."
    
    	    It seems to me that a double standard is being employed
    	    here.  If we want to stop discrimination against hundreds
    	    of MILLIONS of women and people of color, then we had better 
    	    find a way to accomplish it without disturbing the careers of a
    	    single white male.  If one white male can come forward and
    	    prove discrimination, then our whole cause can be considered
    	    wrong.
    
    	    (It's sort of like the idea that women should give the benefit
    	    of the doubt to MOST white males in spite of the huge numbers
    	    of women who are beaten, raped and killed by white men every
    	    year -- yet, if ONE WOMAN SUES FOR PALIMONY, then the entire
    	    woman's movement is set back, and things are RUINED for
    	    the rest of us.)

    	    Well, Mike Zarlenga, I'll tell you what.  I'm willing to
    	    GIVE the benefit of the doubt to most white males who don't
    	    commit violent acts against women, but if you want to tell
    	    me that all job discrimination against women and racial
    	    minorities can END TOMORROW (because of mere instruction
    	    about not doing it anymore,) my faith has its limits. Sorry.

	RE:  .145
        
    	>> First off, in the fourteen years that I've been involved
	>> in technical jobs, I've only seen hiring quotas present
	>> once.
    
    	>Moot point, even though I do believe they are active right now
        >at DEC.  I asked only of they would be abolished, not if they're in
        >use.
    
    		You asked me if *I* would abolish AA practices if people
    		were taught how to hire without bias.  I relayed my
    		personal exposure (and lack thereof) with AA as part
    		of my answer to your question about what *I* would do.
    		(You said specifically, "Would you abolish AA...")
    
       	>In order to change attitudes, you must educate, and it must
        >start at an early age.  It will be at least whole generation before
        >the situation is resolved through education.  Measures like AA are
        >a temporary band aid, but worse, they serve as a negative example
        >and make it harder to educate when you're being hypocritical.
    
		You make a great case in favor of measures like AA here.
    		If changing attitudes in adults is as difficult as you
    		claim, then our society had no other choice than to
    		FORCE employers to hire women and racial minorities
    		while they were waiting for the children of our culture
    		to grow up with new attitudes.  
    
    		Surely you didn't think that the working women and racial 
    		minorities in the 1960's and 1970's were going to be
    		content with the notion "Well, we can't do anything at all 
    		about your plight, but don't worry.  Your descendants will 
    		have better opportunities in 40 or 50 years when the
    		children being born now will come into power."  
    
    		A big part of the cultural message that we all received
    		about the abilities of women and racial minorities to
    		PERFORM difficult jobs was the fact that there were
    		so few minorities present to serve as visible role models
    		to young people who might aspire to those jobs.  Although
    		AA was *never* (to my knowledge) considered to be any
    		kind of total answer, it *did* provide visible minority
    		role models sooner than the 20-50 years (if ever!) that
    		education (about prejudice) alone could have provided.
    
	>> In my personal opinion, the entire issue of equal opportunity
	>> is too complex to be solved by one single "If we do xxxx,
	>> then everything will be completely OK."
    
    	> You misunderstand.  I asked if hiring quotas, and programs like
    	> Affrimative Action which endorse them, would be necessary if the
    	> correct hiring procedures wre taught and used.  EEO guidelines should
    	> stay forever.
    
    		Again, I must correct you.  You asked if *I* would abolish
    		AA and hiring quotas, and I made the above statement
    		as part of my answer to your real question.  I consider
    		AA as *one small part* of the movement toward providing
    		equal economic and employment opportunities for women
    		and other minorities.  Obviously, you have a different
    		idea of what "equal opportunity" means than I do (and
    		I would imagine that your definition would be more
    		concentrated along the lines of NEVER denying a job
    		to a white male if arbitrary hiring techniques could
    		be established that "prove" he has even the most micro-
    		scopic edge over a minority candidate, with all other
    		considerations becoming irrelevant.)  Is that close?  :) 
    
    	>The double standard is surely there, but not where you find
        >it.  It's when you say "don't not hire because of sex or race",
        >and then "hire someone because of their sex or race".

    		Again, you're looking for simplistic statements in 
    		complex areas.  There are times when it is *necessary*
    		to hire based on sex or race.  (For example, there was
    		a software group in CSC/CS that had hired so many women
    		software specialists in a period of years that the group
    		was in danger of being considered a unit that did "women's
    		work," i.e. something_not_as_difficult_or_prestigious_
    		as_the_work_that_MEN_are_hired_to_do, so the managers
    		were put in the position of NEEDING to hire white men for
    		awhile (because of cultural attitudes towards jobs that
    		are done primarily by women.)
 
    		By the way, quotas were not in any way involved in the
    		situation where one unit became predominantly women.
    		It just worked out that way (and action *was* *taken*
    		to hire more white males to make the group more balanced.)
    
    	>For people, like myself, to back a cause, it must be just, and
        >it must be fair, across the board, not just fair to some, but fair
        >to all.  This is KEY, and it is not negotiable.
    
    		If you don't want to back it, then don't.  It is NOT
    		a big personal issue with me whether you do or do not.
    		The only thing that concerns me is the tendency for
    		some white males to come into a minority conference
    		to persistently BADGER the people here about AA as
    		if each of us is personally responsible for it (which
    		we are not.)
    
	>>(It's sort of like the idea that women should give the benefit
	>>of the doubt to MOST white males in spite of the huge numbers
	>>of women who are beaten, raped and killed by white men every
	>>year -- yet, if ONE WOMAN SUES FOR PALIMONY, then the entire
	>>woman's movement is set back, and things are RUINED for
	>>the rest of us.)

    	>I, for one, have never connected rape to palimony, and don't
    	>see either setting the woman's movement back.
    
    		You didn't get my point at all.  Would this help?  The
    		next time a rape occurs, what if I hold YOU personally
    		responsible for it (and think that this ONE RAPE ALONE
    		should determine the way things happen for men from
    		this time forward.)  No, that is NOT how I personally
    		feel.  If you still don't understand what I'm talking
    		about here, please send me mail. 
    
    	>It will take at least one generation, that's about 20 years,
    	>to educate and reform.   AA is an 'overnight solution' that should
    	>end discrimination upon implementation, yet you believe in that,
    	>don't you?
    
    		Well, I don't know *anyone* who has ever considered
    		AA to be a complete solution to anything (overnight
    		or otherwise.)
    
    		As to whether or not I believe in it, do you really
    		want to know?  

    in re .145
    
    Mike,  
    
    Do you seriously mean to imply that we should do nothing but
    educate to correct the current imbalances and that all minorities
    and women should wait patiently for 20 years (I'll be  about retire
    ment age by then) for education to even things up so that we can
    then have the same opportunities that white males have always
    had.
    
    That is how your note reads.
    
    Bonnie

	RE:  .150

	>> You make a great case in favor of measures like AA here.

    	>No, I make a great case for measures that accomplish the same
    	>(superficial) effect as AA - equal opportunity, based on skill. The
    	>ends do not justify the means.
    
    		So far you haven't named anything that *would* have
    		accomplished the same thing that AA accomplished (not
    		that I consider AA's accomplishments to have come anywhere
    		*near* to solving the whole problem.)  It was just one
    		small part of the solution.  Much of the original "problem"
    		still exists (and will for another generation, as you
    		mentioned) but at least we have seen PROGRESS that might
    		not have been possible without AA.
    
    		As for your "ends do not justify the means" argument...
    		I don't think that *insuring* that opportunities are
    		provided for minorities (in a culture where hiring practices
    		have historically *denied* opportunities to those groups)
    		is wrong.  Therefore, no justification is needed.
    
    		In my opinion, the circumstances that necessitated the
    		use of practices like AA were unfortunate for *all* of
    		us (and I would personally have preferred it if these
    		practices had not been necessary.)  However, once the
    		economic/social/employment injustices towards minorities
    		had been fully recognized by our society, something
    		had to be done to effect changes in hiring practices
    		(and the minorities in question simply couldn't be asked
    		to wait another 20-50 years for these changes to begin.)
    
    	> Not quite. I like to believe that the EEO philosophy can be
    	> summed up by saying the words the acronym stands for.

    		So would I.  However, it is more easily said than done.
    		Women and minorities are still *way* under-represented
    		in many areas of employment (even in DEC,) so a lot
    		of improvement is still needed.  Hopefully, we still
    		have much to look forward to in the decades to come.
    
	>> By the way, quotas were not in any way involved in the
	>> situation where one unit became predominantly women.
	>> It just worked out that way (and action *was* *taken*
	>> to hire more white males to make the group more balanced.)

    	>It's more likely that hiring bias, rather than a quota, would
    	>result in a high female concentration.
    
    		It is interesting that you felt you could make that
    		sort of assumption without any direct knowledge
    		of the group or the hiring manager (who was male,
    		by the way, and whom I know personally.)
    
    		It is *precisely* this sort of cultural assumption (that 
    		white males are nearly always more likely to be qualified 
    		than minorities) that has caused both the NEED for
    		practices like AA and the backlash AGAINST such practices 
    		that takes place even when hiring quotas are not being
    		used!  ("What?  They hired a *woman* for that job? 
    		They must have been told that they *had* to hire a woman.
    		... What?  She has two degrees and a Masters?  So what?
    		They *still* probably only gave it to her because she is
    		a woman.  These people just have jobs *handed* to them.")
    		
	>>You didn't get my point at all.  Would this help?  
    
    	>You're right, I didn't get your point, and that did help.  No,
    	>of course it is wrong when any rape occurs.  Rape of a job included.
    
    		You still don't get it.  Never mind.
    
	>>As to whether or not I believe in it, do you really
	>>want to know?  
    
    	>Of course I do.  I don't think we're miles apart on this.
   
    		Where we appear to differ is in the area of which
    		measuring criteria should be used to decide who the
    		"best" candidate is for any given job.  My contention
    		is that the old hiring practices were set up to value the
    		sorts of traits that were most typically found in white
    		males.  My feeling is that any sort of arbitrary setup
    		of measuring criteria can be biased in favor of white
    		males in the name of "let's hire on skills alone."
    
    		Whenever someone tells me in one breath that programs
    		like AA should be totally abolished in favor of hiring
    		on "skills alone" (and then tells me in the next breath
    		that white males more often *have* the best pure job
    		skills,) I tend to get suspicious about the desired
    		outcome of such a scenerio.  

	RE:  .152

    	> You're right, I have no solutions, just observations.
    
    		Like I've said all along, it's a complex situation
    		with no simple answers.  It makes it easier when
    		we can both see that.
    
	>> mentioned) but at least we have seen PROGRESS that might
	>> not have been possible without AA.

    	> Some progress, yes.  But not nearly as much as could have been
    	> expected.
    
    		Well, the progress was better than having done nothing
    		but educate (and just waiting for new generations to grow
    		up without 'hiring biases' a few decades down the road.)
    
   		              ***************************
    
    		The comments at the end of my note were meant in a
    		more general way (rather than attempting to address
    		your individual mindset on this matter.)  Sorry for
    		the confusion.

    re: .146
>    		If you don't want to back it, then don't.  It is NOT
>    		a big personal issue with me whether you do or do not.

I had a lovely conversation off-line with a male woman-noter, where
that was also one of the points made. It's funny; some conversations
become 'convince me to join your movement', when that's not at all what
I'm about. Heck, I'm having a tough enough time convincing women about
this sort of stuff, who has time to convince men!

Though, I'm always glad to chat with male-type friends about this sort
of thing. Just like they're glad to chat with me about, er, picking
up babes, and jock itch [jokejokejoke].
	Mez

re:        < Note 88.157 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >


>            female Caucasian job applicant; Bob, a male Negro job applicant;


        Please  use, black male or man-of-color.  Negro is one of those
        terms given to Blacks by whites, and now  we  have  decided  on
        what we'd like to be called.

        					thanks,

        					Roger

"if ONE WOMAN SUES FOR PALIMONY, then the entire woman's movement is set back,
and things are RUINED for the rest of us."

Give me a break... don't you think you are going too far???

"The next time a rape occurs, what if I hold YOU personally responsible for it
(and think that this ONE RAPE ALONE should determine the way things happen for
men from this time forward.)"

I think that whether or not a '''rape''' occurs is irrelevant.  I'm not sure I
follow your statement of cause and effect at all. Guidelines should be fair to
all, regardless of what the outcomes of those guidelines.  Care should be taken
to insure that the outcome of these internally fair guidelines are fair, but
unfair guidelines should not be used to promote fair outcomes.  Then you are in
the dubious moral position of "the ends justifies the means". 

For the record, I would not expect the unequalities to be evened out even in a
generation.  In a generation, *some* of the mistakes of the past will be
corrected, some will be prepetuated, and some new mistakes will be made. I
suspect that it's more likely that the unequalities have a halflife of a small
quantum/number of generations.  None of this, however, justifies making new
mistakes.

"Where we appear to differ is in the area of which measuring criteria should be
used to decide who the "best" candidate is for any given job."

Hmm, I was under the impression that the difference was that you felt that it
was acceptable to discriminate against white male in some circumstances, and
some other people do not consider it acceptable.

"My contention is that the old hiring practices were set up to value the sorts
of traits that were most typically found in white males."

Such as what?

"The comments at the end of my note were meant in a more general way (rather
than attempting to address your individual mindset on this matter.)"

So who said that here?  How many people?  Does this mean that by being vaguely
inaccurate, instead of specifically inaccurate, that you can duck the charge?

"What AA *should be* (This is MY perception.) is a few extra mental "points"
added to the qualifications of a minority or woman candidate to balance the
mental "points" that the candidate "lost" by not being a male Caucasian."

If that were the case then it should be possible to look at an AA situation
with an objective view and see the prevailing discrimination being counteracted
by AA with the end result being a equal situation.

I think the majority of those opposed to AA see the scenario as being 'Ann is a
candidate having 2 of 3 skills, Bob is a candidate having 2 of 3 skills, Cal is
a candidate having 2 of 3 skills.  How to decide...  well gee, let's make this
easy, how do my quotas look?'  The end result is that Bob and Ann are considered
candidates, but Cal is not. 

Jim.

   in re .158
    
    Roger, Ann was talking in a historical fashion, setting things
    up as they were in the past...can we please use colored and
    negro in that limited sense with out offense...I doubt any
    active =wn= contributor is insensitive on the Black/other name
    issue.
    
    thankyou
    
    and in re Mike Z...
    
    Mike, I wish that AA and EEO were not necessary. I was used to getting
    what I wanted on my own abilities up until I left acadamia and entered
    the busines world.
    
    But in the business word I really feel that my advancement has been
    different because of my sex. And Mike, if you want to complain that
    no white male should suffer *any* discrimination or any set back on
    his job path because some one of a different race or sex was chosen
    for a job because of EEO or AA then my friend I have no sympathy
    for you. You can argue that 'I, a white male never discriminated
    against anyone' ...but Mike...when did those blacks and orientals
    and women discriminate against anyone?  I seriously doubt that any
    white male has ever even *come close* to the kind of discrimination
    that all non whites and many women have felt...and they are out
    there crying 'foul'! when they get even a tiny taste of it...
    
    be serious!
    
    Bonnie

    
    actually this is about as close as I have come to flaming in a long
    long time...only the fact that people also perceive me as a moderator
    has made me keep my tongue!

	Mike, can you say REPARATION?  As in trying to make amends for past
	wrongs. I think you can look at yourself in a similar manner to say
	the German civilians after the war. Maybe they personally weren't
	involved but somebody has to pay and the group that caused the pain
	is usually the one chosen. Unfair, perhaps, but not nearly as painful
	and unfair as the condition that is being amended. 

	BTW, I'm aware of the possible hole in my theory when you consider
	how the Germans reacted to the reparation after WWI but it was the
	best example that came to mind. Hmm, now that I think about it I suppose
	Mike's anger at this is somewhat similar. There's not enough jobs for
	everyone, that means someone isn't going to be hired. liesl

	RE: .159
    
>>"if ONE WOMAN SUES FOR PALIMONY, then the entire woman's movement is set back,
>>and things are RUINED for the rest of us."

>Give me a break... don't you think you are going too far???

    	This was meant as a paraphrase of words I've often heard about
    	how one woman's action can effect other women.  (This idea was
    	repeated most recently by a man in the Palimony note.)
    
    	33.122> "In my opinion, Margo Adams [the 'one woman' who sued
    	for palimony mentioned above] takes the equality movement backward
    	and hurts every woman who has legitimately worked hard to
    	earn her place in every aspect of life....I see this type of
    	issue being one that men say 'that's a woman for ya' and women
    	suffering for it."  
    
    	My point was that our culture tends to have so little tolerance
    	for minorities as individual people that *ONE MEMBER* of a
    	minority group can make all/most of the other members suffer
    	for whatever actions the one member does as an individual.
    
    	At the same time, members of the majority often become quite impatient
    	and angry if minority members bring up the THOUSANDS OF YEARS
    	that their group has been discriminated against by the majority (and the
    	BILLIONS OF PEOPLE who have been the victims of such treatment.)
    	I often hear "Don't paint me with the same broad brush" as the
    	guilty parties, yet if ONE MEMBER of a minority makes a wrong move,
    	we're told that the rest of us (in the minority) will *ALL*
    	have to suffer for it.  (Quite often, the phrase "she/they RUIN
    	it for the rest of you" is used.)  
    
>>"The next time a rape occurs, what if I hold YOU personally responsible for it
>>(and think that this ONE RAPE ALONE should determine the way things happen for
>>men from this time forward.)"

>I think that whether or not a '''rape''' occurs is irrelevant.  I'm not sure I
>follow your statement of cause and effect at all.
    
    	Does this ring a bell?  "That's a man for ya" (and all men suffer
    	for it -- for one single rape committed by someone they don't
    	even know.)  Again -- this is NOT how I personally feel.
    
>For the record, I would not expect the unequalities to be evened out even in a
>generation.  In a generation, *some* of the mistakes of the past will be
>corrected, some will be prepetuated, and some new mistakes will be made. I
>suspect that it's more likely that the unequalities have a halflife of a small
>quantum/number of generations.  None of this, however, justifies making new
>mistakes.

    	Right.  And I would consider one of the "new mistakes" we should
    	steer AWAY from is turning the word "discrimination" into something
    	that can be used *against* minorities in order to *prevent* them
    	from making the difficult progress that lies ahead.  
    
>>"Where we appear to differ is in the area of which measuring criteria should be
>>used to decide who the "best" candidate is for any given job."

>Hmm, I was under the impression that the difference was that you felt that it
>was acceptable to discriminate against white male in some circumstances, and
>some other people do not consider it acceptable.

    	Well, your impression was dead wrong.  That's why it's a good
    	idea not to try speaking for me.
    
>>"My contention is that the old hiring practices were set up to value the sorts
>>of traits that were most typically found in white males."

>Such as what?

    	Such as white skin and male sexual organs (as *indicators* of
    	intelligence, dedication, strength of character, among other
    	things, and as the holder of the "image" that was most desired
    	by the business community.)
    
>>"The comments at the end of my note were meant in a more general way (rather
>>than attempting to address your individual mindset on this matter.)"

>So who said that here?  How many people?  Does this mean that by being vaguely
>inaccurate, instead of specifically inaccurate, that you can duck the charge?

    	I didn't know that I was on trial here, although I'm glad you
    	used that particular word because I often feel that sometimes
    	when a man comes into this conference pissed off about paying too
    	much child support (or about hearing of a white man who lost a
    	job to a minority because of AA,) then *ALL* women are on trial,
    	suddenly (and are being pinned against the wall in this conference,
    	figuratively speaking, with the sort of cross-examinations from
    	some men that amount to efforts to extract CONFESSIONS from
    	us that a member(s) of a minority was responsible for their
    	having been treated unfairly.)
    
    	If it's all the same to you, I *was* making a reference (in
    	the quote furnished above) to something specific that I had
    	heard (not from Mike Zarlenga.)  Not that it really matters.

>    < Note 88.162 by NOETIC::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >
                           -< it's been like a war >-


>	Mike, can you say REPARATION?  As in trying to make amends for past
>	wrongs. I think you can look at yourself in a similar manner to say
>	the German civilians after the war. Maybe they personally weren't
>	involved but somebody has to pay and the group that caused the pain
>	is usually the one chosen. Unfair, perhaps, but not nearly as painful
>	and unfair as the condition that is being amended. 
                                     
    	ARRARARGGAGGGAGG!!!!!!  this really makes me mad.  Take a white
    male who has championed womens and minority rights his entire life.
    YOUR SAYING BECAUSE HE'S A WHITE MALE THEN HE'S PART OF THE GROUP
    THAT CAUSED THE PAIN. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BIGOTS WHO CAUSED THE
    PAIN.
    
            
        I sincerly hope that this is just your opinion and not that
    of a majority of woman and minorities.  I kinda felt that we were
    all trying (basically) to reach the same goal, namely equality for
    all.  If you think that someone would be justified in dishing out
    "pain" to any group just because at one time some jerk dished it
    to them then you are no better then them. I think maybe I was being
    a tad idealistic when I thought the only people that needed education
    where the white males in power.
    
    
    
    			totally p*&ssed off
    
    				A.J. 
    
    
ps
    
    How did the germans react to paying all this "reparation". Can you
    say WWII?  I guess reparation doesn't work.

    	In the late 1960's, I once read a book written a Black Extremist
    	of the times (where he strongly advocated complete and utter
    	hatred and violence against all whites.)
    
    	I was a teenager at the time (a white one,) and it really opened
    	my eyes about the way black people had been treated in America.
    
    	The funny thing was -- even though I realized that *I* was among
    	those that the book said should be despised (and worse,) it
    	didn't make me mad.  I didn't feel even the tiniest sense of
    	"BACKLASH RAGE" at the group advocating hating me (nor did I
    	start to wonder if ALL black people hated me.)  I didn't feel
    	any sense at all of betrayal for the fact that I had supported
    	civil rights (and continued to do so.)
    
    	It just made me think a lot about what white people had done
    	to black people for the past couple hundred years (or so) and
    	I felt terrible about it.  No, I didn't do it, but I felt terrible
    	about it anyway and decided that Black Extremists had to find
    	their own peace with it (and that there was no reason for me
    	to complicate things, for myself included, by feeling backlash
    	rage at their ideas.)
    
    	Having been part of one majority, I don't feel a sense of personal
    	insult and outrage when I see members of a minority vent some
    	true feelings about how they have been treated (even when *I*
    	am part of the majority group.)  I guess I feel that after every-
    	thing a minority group has been through (even if I had nothing
    	to do with it,) it's not asking much to expect me to understand
    	that some rough feelings might be present towards my group for
    	the past (and that I will occasionally have to listen to things
    	that won't be fun to hear about what my race has done to others.)
    
    	This is just my own personal reaction, of course, but I don't
    	see why backlash rage is such a problem for *some* members of 
    	majority groups.  Why not allow minorities their opportunity
    	to vent and heal?  Why is that such a difficult thing to do
    	for some people?

    re .165
    	
>       This is just my own personal reaction, of course, but I don't
>    	see why backlash rage is such a problem for *some* members of 
>    	majority groups.  Why not allow minorities their opportunity
>    	to vent and heal?  Why is that such a difficult thing to do
>    	for some people?
           
    	Venting and healing is one thing, "reparation for pain" is 
    	another.  How are we ever going to get out of this mess if
    	one group is continually dumping the other, or vice versa?
    
        I strongly believe that human nature is racially or sexually
        blind.  In other words I think that blacks and women are no
    	better or worse than white men.  I don't any group has the right
    	to dump on another.
    
    
    			- A.J.
                              

    	RE:  .166
    
    	Then why not be the first one to make peace (insteading of
    	dumping very *badly* all over Liesl a few notes back)?
    
    	If you want peace, then why not be the one to start it
    	(instead of dumping after someone else "dumps"?)
    
    	Otherwise, we could end up with:
    
    			Original discrimination.
    			Reaction to the original discrimination.
    			Backlash to the reaction.
    			Backlash to the backlash.
    			Backlash to the backlash to the backlash.
    			Backlash to the backlash to the backlash to....

    	I think you get the idea.

RE :    < Note 88.167 by NEXUS::CONLON >
>    	RE:  .166
>    
>    	Then why not be the first one to make peace (insteading of
>    	dumping very *badly* all over Liesl a few notes back)?
    
    
    	I do not know if Liesl is black, white, male, female or whatever.
    
    	My reponse would have been the same if I knew Liesl was a white
    	man or if I knew Liesl was a black female.  I was not responding
    	to the person I was responding to the message.
    	
    	I will admit, however, that I that thought Liesl was female.
    	You'll have to take me at my word that it didn't change my 
    	reply.
    
    	
    
    			- A.J.
    

    	RE:  .168
    
    	It doesn't matter.  You were still involved in the "backlash
    	to the backlash to the backlash" (or whatever...)
    
    	Go back and read your note to her (Liesl.)  If that isn't a
    	backlash response, then I don't know what else you could
    	possibly call it.  
    

    
    re .169
    
    	are you saying that if you diagree with someone you should keep
    	quiet so everyone can live in harmony with no diagreement.
    
    	If I feel someone is wrong I will tell them so. Just like
    	if they feel I am wrong they should tell me.

    	RE:  .170
    
    	Do you consider .164 a mere disagreement?  We picked it up on
    	the Richter Scale way out here in Colorado.  (Even NORAD is 
    	looking into it, as we speak.)
    

	The feeling that I was responding to in my note is that if any
	white male loses out on getting a job and the person they lose
	out to is a woman or a minority then there MUST have been reverse
	descrimination. Lets face it, maybe the person who beat you out is
	BETTER than you once the bias towards white males is removed.

	We keep comming back to what really decides who is hired. Sometimes
	it's a functin of who makes the boss most comfortable, sometimes it's
	technical ability and sometimes it's who can work on team. There is
	no hard set of rules to say who is really best and as long as this
	is a subjective process it's pretty much a judgement call as to who
	is best. All you've lost is the automatic assumption that by being
	a white male you are the best by default. liesl

The following is taken from "The Albuquerque Tribune,"  9 Aug., 1988,
p. A4.  This was an editorial article by Guy Wright.


		NEW LIEUTENANT'S BARS LOSE TEHIR SHINE

  Johnny Lo should be one happy fellow.  He's a brand new lieutenant in 
the San Francisco Fire Department, promoted along with 80 other men
under Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's civil rights order that put race above
merit.  And that's the rub.
  Lo would have won promotion anyhow, because he scored high on the 
competitive exam that the judge threw out.  And because his lieutenant's
bars didn't come that way, they lost a lot of their shine.
  He wrote to Patel: "I thought being appointed lieutenant would be one 
of the happiest days of my Fire Department career."
  Then he explained why it wasn't: "It is very difficult to be in a 
position of authority over men who deserved the same promotion, but because
they were not the right race this year, they received no reward for the 
time and effort they invested.  I can understand their bitterness because I
know how I would feel if I were in their position."
  He concluded:  "Please reconsider the way you have handled this difficult
problem.  there must be a better solution."
  Indeed there must.
  Because the promotional exam didn't produce a racial rainbow, Patel 
decided it must have been biased, and she declared the results invalid.
  But first, she used those results to decree promotions in a manner that
smacks of apartheid.  She divided the 400-odd candidates by race.  Then she
promoted an arbitrary number from each race, based on how well they 
scored within their racial group.
  
  As a result, many white firefighters who scored high were passed over for
promotion and are now taking orders from minority colleagues who scored
far below them.

  Promotional exams in the Fire Department are killers.  They have to be,
what with all the exotic chemiclas, synthetic building materials, and
spaceage construction firefighters encounter today.
  No one does well on these exams without months of study.  Most who 
finish high have taken a fire science course at City College on their
own time.  But under Patel's order, promotions went to men who leaped
far ahead simply because of their skin color.
  That was the injustice that turned Johnny Lo's promotion bittersweet.
But he did more than express disappointment.  He told the judge how she
could reduce the injustice of her ruling.
  His suggestion:  "Allow the list to run its course."
  He was talking about a list of all the firefighters who took the exam,
ranked according to their scores.  Normally that list is posted and
remains the basis for promotions for two to four years.

  But Patel junked the list after using it in a twisted way to fill racial
quotas.  As Lo pointed out, she could show a sense of fairness by permitting 
its use for the rest of its normal life as the basis for strictly merit 
promotions.

  She is unlikely to do that.  Early in this case, she decided to put group
justice above justice to the individual.  In signing her decree she said:
  "It is both fair and reasonable to require those who have been the "passive
beneficiaries" of the past discrimination to bear some of the burden in
remedying the harm caused to others."

  Common sense says not every firefighter has benefitted from discrimination.

  On the contrary, many have seen their careers stunted - some are still 
denied promotions the won 10 years ago.
  Too bad Judge Patel's sense of justice isn't as clear as Johnny Lo's.

    As I said a long time ago
    
    give the job to the most qualified person
    
    and give every perosn an equal opportunity to get that job.
    
    This means no quotas and no discrimination.
    
    mike

    
    
    	I think people are getting the wrong idea of what I am trying
    
    to say.  I think qualified women should get jobs. I think qualified
    
    minorities should get jobs.  I have seen many women that were vastly
    
    superior to me in many different ways (somtimes all ways). The same
    
    may be said for
    
    for minorities.  I have also seen many that were vastly inferior.
    
    I only want the most superior person to get any particular job.
    
    If that means I don't get the job then "oh well" I lost out to better
    
    person.  I don't, however want to lose a job to a inferior person
    
    because the system was rigged. I agree that for all of history women
    
    and minorities have been treated like sh*t.  I am sorry about that
    
    but there's not much I can do about it. I wasn't around.
    
    I propose that we start fresh right now and treat everyone as people,
    
    not men or women or white or black or whatever.
    
    			- A.J.
    
    ps  Equality to me also means that I argue with men the same way
        I argue with all people, usually strongly.

    RE: .176
    
    But that's the problem, A.J. we *can't* "start fresh".
    
    We can't start from "right now" with clean slates.
    
    Our slate is dirty. What we are doing now is the process of
    wiping it. When it really *is* clean, then we can start fresh.
    
    The treatment that women and minorities have received for hundreds,
    thousands of years has caused a situation which places us at many
    disadvantages (some of which have been listed in this very note).
    
    We are in the race, but we didn't start when the gun was fired,
    and we are playing "Catch Up".
    
    You are saying everyone's on an equal footing now, so we don't
    need "advantages". 
    
    But everyone's NOT on an equal footing. *That's* what we've been
    trying to say.
    
    --DE
    

RE: a whole bunch

	I find it singularly ironic that at least two of the white men
    protesting the "preferential treatment" of women and minorities in the
    hiring process are themselves the beneficiaries of an explicitly
    preferential hiring process: the College Hire Program.

	For those who are unaware of this program, a few facts:

    For years, DIGITAL (did I get the trademark right :-) has had a policy
    of encouraging the hiring of recent college grads.  Recent, under this
    policy, means within 12 months after receiving a degree (or within 12
    months of separation from the military, if the grad entered the
    military directly upon graduation).  Someone has posted the exact
    definition of College Hire eligibility in the HUMAN::DIGITAL notesfile
    (KP7 and all that).

    Certain job reqs are explicitly (not pencilled in, folks, but printed)
    marked as "College Hire" reqs. Although I'm a short timer at
    Digital (4+ years), I've already been through two or three outside
    hiring freezes -- where reqs could only be filled by internal
    candidates -- EXCEPT that college hire reqs were NOT frozen. 

    What are the results of this policy?  Well, it means that someone who
    has been out of college for more than 12 months is just plain out of
    luck if the req is a college hire req.  It means that Jane Hiring
    Manager may just have to settle if she needs a req filled, and "the
    most qualified" candidate isn't a recent college grad.  It means, in
    these parlous times, when minorities and members of the working class
    are leaving (or not entering) colleges in droves for economic reasons,
    that we have the potential of  skewing the demographics
    of all new hires toward white, middle class men.


    I notice that, if a college hire behaves immaturely, the response
    is,"well, he's young, and he'll grow out of it" [sorry, I've NEVER
    heard anyone say, "well, she's young"...etc.].  But if it's a minority
    or woman who behaves immaturely, the response is "well, we wouldn't
    have to deal with them if it weren't for EEO/AA".  (Hey, I've go it! My
    internal response to some of the men doing the EEO/AA kvetching in this
    notes file should be "well, we wouldn't have to deal with them if it
    weren't for the College Hire program" :-) 

    I don't know how much preferential hiring goes on in the name of EEO/AA
    -- in the past few days, people whose word I trust have told me of reqs
    that *they've personally seen* which have a "minority or woman" notation
    on it.  I would argue that Digital has its reasons for promoting
    EEO/AA. Now, Digital has its reasons for promoting the College Hire
    program.  I personally think many of these reasons are good ones.  BUT
    IT IS PREFERENTIAL HIRING.   So take off your "holier than thou" airs,
    guys, and help work towards a true equality.

    Bobbi_who_managed_to_slip_into_DEC_though_a_crack_in_the_1984_freeze

    Mike,
    
    That reply removes a great deal of doubt about your level of
    reading comprehension.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    re. .179
    
    	Roberta your absolutely right. I never gave it any thought.
    
    	The college hire program discriminates
    
    	against people who have been out of school more than one year.
    
    	If Mike (shannon) and I are going to argue that the most qualified
    
    	person should get a job then that qualifcation should not include
    
    	the length of time one has been out of school. Requiring someone
    
    	with a college degree, I think, is O.K.
    
    
    		good point - A.J.
                                                                      

    I think that it is important to give preference to women and minorities
    in the situation where it is unclear whether one person would be
    any more qualified than the other.  I think it's called affirmative
    action.
    
    

    re .184
    
    why?
    
    

    
    I've been really busy lately, and I'm about 20 replies
    behind on this string, so maybe someone has already spoken to this
    issue, but...
    
    With regard to the issue of equality in hiring and pay, I'm not
    sure that current AA and EEO statutes are really about "reparation,"
    although I do think that's an important concept.  I think all the
    rules around hiring and pay are trying to say to managers, "Look,
    given the numbers of women and men-and-women-of-color in the work
    place, your organization ought to have at least x% women and people of 
    color."  I think that is a very reasonable, forward thinking statement
    to make. Where we get into trouble, I think, is in how we go about
    enforcing that policy.  Because on the micro level, it may look
    like some people are getting preferential treatment because of
    their membership in certain groups. 

    I wonder how many of you have ever known a woman or a person of color
    who seemed incompetent and underqualified for her or his job?  A clear
    example of "reverse discrimination," right?  Well, as you think about
    that question, try thinking about how many white males you know who
    seem to be incompetent and underqualified for their job...  Dare I ask
    you to consider that the competence/incompetence ration gets distributed
    pretty evenly, but that women and people of color are more visible, and
    so their mistakes are more visible.. and the "wrongness" of their
    hiring more apparent?  I think that anyone who feels that it's
    tough to find competent women and people of color with whom to
    "fill their quotas" is either extrememly unlucky, or maybe their perception
    is skewed... much in the way that Ann described in her scenario of three
    "candidates."  I think the AA and EEO policies help keep us honest, keep
    us from dismissing viable candidates because of the misfortune of our
    socialization in this anti-(anyone who isn't a white, presumably 
    heterosexual male) culture of ours.  I think we've a ways to go yet
    before we can say to people, "Be nice, and do the 'right thing'" and
    expect them to be able to figure out what that is and then do it.

    Justine

RE: 88.185

A think that 88.186 sums it up well.

We need to go out of our way to make up for societies injustices.  It
sounds unfair, but until people stop judging others on their sex or race,
a fair choice will not be made.  So, if one has to err, at least do it in favor
of the oppressed party.  This will give the individual a chance to prove their
worth, and possibly change some people's prejudiced viewpoints.  If the
white male is hired, nothing will change.
    

    The following is a "thought experiment", intended to help me (at
    least) understand where people are coming from in regards to
    preferential treatment for groups who have been on the short end
    of the stick for many years.  Please try to respond to the overall
    concept and not the specific proposal...
    
    Given that, for many years, men have been discriminated against
    in divorce settlements (custody awards, property settlement, etc.),
    let's make it a requirement that the courts weight decisions and
    awards in the man's favor, in order to make up for past inequities.
    This would mean a predisposition to award child custody to the father,
    if he wanted it, despite the wishes of the mother, require the
    wife to pay alimony to the husband regardless of relative incomes,
    etc.
    
    How do you react to this?  Is it similar in concept to the biases
    now in place in favor of women/minorities?  If not, why?  What
    arguments can you make against this proposal that are not equally
    valid against the hiring discrimination that has been discussed
    in this note?  Or do you think both are good ideas?
    
    				Steve

    	RE:  .188
    
    	Steve, the problem I find with your proposal is that you have
    	suggested a complete and total (180 degree) turnaround for men
    	and women (when it comes to the kind of treatment they receive
    	in divorce cases.)
    
    	Stop and think for a minute what a complete and total (180 degree)
    	turnaround would mean in the areas of economic and political
    	opportunity:  (BTW, I didn't read Steve Thompson's scenerio of a
    	woman-dominated society, so sorry if some of this is a repeat.)
    
    	First off, we'd have to take away white men's right to vote for at
    	least 100 years.  Second, only women and racial minorities would
    	be permitted to hold 98% of the elected offices (especially
    	President, Vice President, and nearly all of the Senate and
    	House of Representatives, not to mention state, county and
    	city governments.)  We could allow a few token white males
    	here or there, but certainly not enough to have a real voice
    	in anything.
    
    	In the workplace, all the top slots would HAVE to be filled by
    	women and racial minorities.  No question.  As for the high-
    	paying technical jobs, we'd have to lock white men out COMPLETELY
    	for a minimum of 100 years (I could say 5,000 years but I
    	am feeling generous.) :)  In 100 years time, we could let maybe
    	10 or 15% of our jobs go to white men (which some of us would
    	*refuse* to consider them qualified to do, of course.)  Some
    	of us would give them a real hard time about that for DECADES,
    	too!  >:^)
    
       	I'm just kidding you, Steve (I'm sure you know that.)  The point
    	I'm trying to make is that your scenerio about divorces is not
    	in any way comparable to programs like AA.  In no way do women
    	and minorities want to LOCK WHITE MEN COMPLETELY OUT of the economic
    	and political picture (even though most of *us* were effectively
    	locked out of it for thousands of years ourselves.)
    
    	We just want to SHARE the economic and political opportunities,
    	that's all.  Unfortunately, sexism and racial prejudice is still
    	so deeply ingrained in our culture that it took goverment measures
    	to make sure that employers would ALLOW us to begin to share
    	those opportunities with white men.  In no way does the government
    	(nor anyone else) intend to give ABSOLUTELY ALL of the
    	opportunities to minorities (and virtually NONE to white males.)
    
    	There is a difference between one_person_being_locked_out_of_
    	one_job_at_one_time_because_an_employer_has_vowed_to_give_members_
    	of_another_group_an_opportunity, and an ENTIRE RACE, COLOR or
    	CREED being almost ENTIRELY LOCKED OUT FROM ALL POSITIONS INVOLVING
    	MONEY AND/OR POWER.
    
    	If I knew that 2 times out of 10, I would lose an opportunity
    	because of my gender, I could handle it.  The problem was that
    	we were losing chances *9 or 10* times out of *10* for that reason
    	(meaning that we were faced with virtually NO opportunities
    	AT ALL until programs like EEO and AA started.)
    
    	White men have never had to face being locked out 2 times out
    	of 10 for reason of their gender or skin color, until possibly
    	now.  Believe me, it is a piece of cake compared to being locked
    	out completely!  (And being locked out completely is something
    	that will never happen to *either* of us again.)  Thank God.

	RE:  .175   Mike Shannon
    
    	> As I said a long time ago
    	> give the job to the most qualified person
    	> and give every perosn an equal opportunity to get that job.
    	> This means no quotas and no discrimination.
    
    	Hire the "most qualified person" ... unless the req happens
    	to be marked for a "College Hire," in which case the MOST QUALIFIED
    	PERSON can be disqualified for having graduated more than 12
    	months prior to the job opening.
    
    	How is this any different at all than AA?  (As a matter of fact,
    	this strikes me as quite a bit more DRASTIC than AA because recent
    	college graduates could end up being hired over people with
    	10 or 20 years of practical WORK EXPERIENCE only because of
   	the fact that the req is slated for a "College Hire" and the
    	hiring manager is FORCED to bring the less qualified person
    	in because of one criteria that gives an unfair advantage over
    	someone else with the *same* degree but who has been in the
    	work force, gaining valuable experience, for over a year.)
    
    	Mind you, I don't have a problem with this program AT ALL, but
    	I want to know how you feel you can justify NOT hiring the most
    	qualified person in *this* case (but feel strongly enough about
    	it in the case of AA to have made such a huge point of bringing
    	it up repeatedly in this topic.)
    
    	Thanks very much.

    RE: .190
    
    	I can not justify it. By having req's marked as college
    hire only we as a company lose a great number of possible candidates.
    
    	My opinion, get rid of the "college hire" part of the req.
    
    	I had never thought of this till roberta brought it up a couple
    notes back. But she is absolutely right.
    
    	I see a philosophical difference here in the way this discussion
    is going. 
    
    	I am taking the stand that a hiring manager will always choose
    the best person to fill a job, and because I believe that, or want
    to, then in my opinion job quotas are not necessary.
    
    	Others here are saying that unless quotas exist then hiring
    managers will always - or most of the time - overlook better qualified
    non white males, and fill the job with a white male. So to insure
    that we have a diversity of people and are "fair" then we need the
    quotas.
    
    	Maybe I am being optomistic in the way I think hiring managers hire
    people, maybe you - people with view 2 - are being overly pessimistic?

    	I ask for a second people with view 2 to think about my point
    of view - where I am coming from on this - and try to answer the
    question given you are assuming that hiring managers are fair that
    and always hire the best candidate, answer this
    	are hiring quotas necessary?
    
    	my answer - as you all know is ....   no.
    
    mike    
	

    	RE:  .191
    
    	Mike, were you a "College Hire" (and if so, do you feel guilty
    	now that some more qualified person was denied a job because
    	the opening was designated for persons recently out of college
    	instead of more qualified people who had graduated some years
    	ago?)  I keep getting the feeling that you expect *us* to feel
    	guilty about quotas (even though many of us, including myself,
    	have never been part of any sort of quota system within DEC.)
    
    	As far as expecting managers to hire white males *most* (or
    	all) of the time without quotas, you are putting words into
    	our mouths.  I have worked in two states (in three cities)
    	for DEC in the past 6 and a half years and I have never seen
    	any sort of quota system in action (and yet there were both
    	women and minorities in technical and managerial jobs in all
    	three DEC sites.)  So, obviously, I don't have as pessi-
    	mistic a view of hiring managers as you have assumed.
    
    	I'm not directly aware of *any* DEC site that has an active
    	quota system (although people keep telling me they exist
    	*somewhere* in DEC.)  I'll take people's word for it that
    	they do, and as such (a "faith" that people are correct in
    	saying that they exist,) I don't disagree with the idea
    	philosophically because I know why programs like AA were
    	started in the first place (and I believe that the same
    	societal conditions that prompted such programs a decade or
    	more ago, still exist today.)
    
    	If you were hired in the College Hire program, then you have
    	*infinitely* more experience with getting preferential hiring
    	treatment from DEC than I do (or than any other woman or
    	minority that I know personally.)  If you are so gungho against
    	the idea of having been hired ahead of people more qualified
    	than yourself, why didn't you refuse the position?  Didn't
    	it occur to you that the program was preventing more qualified
    	people from getting hired?  (Didn't it bother your principles
    	to take a job under such circumstances?)
    
    	It wouldn't have bothered me, but I hold a different view about
    	such things than you do (so I am wondering how you managed to
    	reconcile yourself with this idea when you took the job.)

    I was hired out of college yes.
    
    Yes the company did make a mistake, if it could have hired a more
    experienced person to take the entry level position I filled.

    - yes it could have found a more experienced person also.
    
    I wish my position had been open to every one then I would know
    
    beyond a shadow of a doubt that I deserve this job.
    
	So I used the system to my benefit I guess, but that doesn't
    justify the system.
    
    	mike

    	RE:  .193
    
    	Mike, it's too bad you feel that way about your job, because
    	I personally think that the company knows exactly what it is
    	doing when it has programs like "College Hire" (and I don't
    	have a single problem with the idea!)
    
    	Like I said many notes ago, Digital is a PEOPLE COMPANY (not
    	just a brokerage house for brains and bodies that can be used
    	to produce revenue!)  Digital also feels a responsibility to
    	the communities in which it operates, and to the culture as
    	a whole (including the diverse people of which our various
    	cultures in DEC-around-the-world are composed.)  It sees as
    	part of this responsibility an obligation to consider the
    	impact that its hiring practices have on that culture, which
    	is why special programs like EEO and "College Hire" are in
    	practice in DEC.
    
    	People coming directly out of college have traditionally found
    	it difficult to get a first good break without experience, so
    	Digital has a program to help people overcome that difficulty.
    	I like that idea a lot, and as a 12-year college graduate, I
    	don't have a problem with the idea that I may, someday, have
    	to change my plans a bit because some group that I want to join
    	can only get a "College Hire" req instead of a req for which
    	I would be considered (even with all my years of service here.)
    
    	I'm willing to face that possibility because I believe in DEC's
    	commitment to programs that are designed to provide people with
    	opportunities because they know that such opportunities have
    	often been (or are currently being) denied these particular
    	people in the rest of our culture.
    
    	That is why I believe in programs like EEO, AA, and "College
    	Hire."  Doesn't that make sense?

    re: .194
    
    I have been staying out of this discussion, cause 1) I'm leaving
    and I didn't want to get in a big argument with someone, and then
    cut it off in the middle, and 2) I hadn't decided where I stood.
    However, I have now decided where I stand...and for some reason
    note .194 was the clincher.  (I don't know why, it wasn't even about
    Affirmative Action...)  So in those famous noting words, I'll add
    my two cents, and say about Suzanne Conlon...
    
                     "Yeah, what she said...."
    
    (at least about *this* subject.  :-)
    
    D!ana

RE : .190
                                          
>    	Hire the "most qualified person" ... unless the req happens
>    	to be marked for a "College Hire," in which case the MOST QUALIFIED
>    	PERSON can be disqualified for having graduated more than 12
>    	months prior to the job opening.
		
	Niether Mike nor I ever said or implied this. Its as bad as quotas.

>  	How is this any different at all than AA?  (As a matter of fact,
>    	this strikes me as quite a bit more DRASTIC than AA because recent
>    	college graduates could end up being hired over people with
>    	10 or 20 years of practical WORK EXPERIENCE only because of
>   	the fact that the req is slated for a "College Hire" and the
>    	hiring manager is FORCED to bring the less qualified person
>    	in because of one criteria that gives an unfair advantage over
>    	someone else with the *same* degree but who has been in the
>    	work force, gaining valuable experience, for over a year.)
  
	 Suzanne, the tone of sarcasm I get from this is really upsetting.
	You ask me to tone down my responses, yet you feel you can 
	make statements that imply that we are hypocrites and expect me
	not to get mad.

	 Both Mike and I admitted that this program is wrong. By your
	statement you are implying that we think " well discrimination
	that doesn't help us is bad, but if it does help then its fine"
	When we were hired neither of us even knew that a college hire was any
	different from any other hire. We were both blind to this until 
	Roberta pointed it out.
	
		- A.J. 

PS 	I have nothing against people who have been hired by a quota. I feel
	everyone should do whats in there best interests. My problem is with
	the system that lets people do it.
 

    	RE:  .197
    
    	You don't have to admit to me that the College Hire program
    	is wrong, because I don't think it is.
    
    	I was trying to get you to see that programs like AA come in
    	a lot of different forms (one of which has been able to benefit
    	you and Mike.)  I'm happy for both of you that you were each
    	able to get a neat opportunity to work for DEC under this program.
    	Honestly!
    
    	It was not my intention to have both of you upset to find that
    	you accepted a position in a way that goes against your stated
    	principles.  What I was trying to do was to show you that you
    	were being too *rigid* with those principles (and as a result,
    	were being way too hard on the kinds of people who benefit from
    	programs like AA.)
    
    	Now you have both discovered that *YOU* are some of the people
    	who benefit from programs like AA (and now you are BOTH being
    	too hard on yourselves, in my opinion.)
    
    	Digital runs its business the way it wants to (and take my word,
    	they believe in their programs very deeply or they wouldn't
    	have them.)  I'm sure that a lot of companies get away with
    	running EEO and/or AA to the letter of the law without the
    	spirit of it.  Digital offers opportunities because it is
    	the right thing to do.
    
    	Sometimes doing the right thing can step on an individual
    	toe here or there.  In my opinion, it is a small sacrifice
    	to ask each of us to make when we *KNOW* we will have other
    	opportunities available to us (even if we hit a snag on one
    	here or there.)  
    
    	Neither you nor I can control what Digital decides to do with
    	its cultural responsibilities, so why do you feel the need to
    	keep questioning it?  There are plenty of companies who feel
    	none at all, honestly.  Myself, I like Digital's way of doing
    	things better (and that's why I am a "DEC Lifer"!!)  Are you?

RE: .194
            
>        	People coming directly out of college have traditionally found
>    	it difficult to get a first good break without experience, so
>    	Digital has a program to help people overcome that difficulty.
    
    It's not Digitals responsibility to make sure college kids get a
    break.  Digital should only be concerned with getting the most
    qualified person it can for what ever amount of money it's offering.
    
>    	I like that idea a lot, and as a 12-year college graduate, I
>    	don't have a problem with the idea that I may, someday, have
>    	to change my plans a bit because some group that I want to join
>    	can only get a "College Hire" req instead of a req for which
>    	I would be considered (even with all my years of service here.)
 
      Maybe you don't have a problem with it but alot of other people
      might. You hire the most qualified person you can get, period.
      if that means that the only person you can get is a new college
      grad, well - then fine. 
    
      Suzanne, you seem to agree with peferential hiring treatment when it
      suits your paticular sense of "justice". I might agree if it suited
      my sense of "justice".  I don't think anyone should play GOD.
      There should be no prefered treatment for any group.
    
    			- A.J.
    

    re "college hires":
    
    I really have a hard time believing that a recent college grad and
    a person with years of experiance are competing for the same job.
    I find it hard to believe that any manager is forced to fill a senior
    position with a college hire. I really do not think that the college
    hire program is in any way comparable to AA. 
    
    This whole discussion about college hires to me is a complete
    non-sequiter. It is like complaining that Software Engineers are
    shut out of Mechanical Engineering positions. If I have to fill
    a req for a Software Engineer, who is the "best" candidate; the
    BSCS one year out of school or the MSME with 10 years of experiance?
    
    "College Hire" I don't see as being fundamentally different than
    specifying "Mechanical Engineer", "Software Engineer", or "Management
    Engineer" (a new position I just made up, aka "Secretary") 
                                                              
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	RE:  .199
    
    	Who are you to tell Digital that they shouldn't be allowed
    	to offer special opportunities if they want to (whether it
    	be to recent college graduates or minorities?)  You don't
    	own this corporation -- they do.  If they want to run it
    	by offering opportunities to people like you, let 'em!
    
    	Good grief!
    
    	
    	RE:  .200
    
    	If you have a group of people who all have the same kind of
    	degrees (as opposed to opening a position with a totally
    	different degree than everyone else,) then college hires
    	end up working on the same/similar work as the oldtimers.
    	Or they will eventually, right?
    
    	So when all these folks with the same degree decide they
    	need (or can requisition) more help, sometimes it comes in
    	the form of a College Hire instead of a more experienced
    	person.  It's not a totally different occupation (like
    	Software Engineer would be to Mechanical Engineer.)
    
    	We don't ever hire hardware engineers (in my group) from
    	the *outside*, so we don't have a College Hire program.  However,
    	we *DO* have development positions sometimes (meaning that we
    	deliberately hire people upon whom we can bestow our wondrous
    	collection of knowledge and expertise, rather than hire someone
    	who already knows what we know.)  Why do we do that?  Because
    	it's just something Digital likes to do.
    
    	Digital likes it *so much*, in fact, that managers are RATED
    	on how well they can develop employees.  Why?  Because Digital
    	likes to give something *TO* employees as well as accept the
    	gift of our productivity (and they think that giving something
    	*TO* employees involves more than just the blue card representing
    	money that we get every week.)
    
    	Geesh!  Why is all this so damn hard to understand?

   RE: .201 
                                                    
   >    	Who are you to tell Digital that they shouldn't be allowed
   > 	to offer special opportunities if they want to (whether it
   > 	be to recent college graduates or minorities?)  You don't
   > 	own this corporation -- they do.  
                                                      
    	Am I wrong or doesn't the constituition have something to
    	say about this?
    
    	What your saying then is that Digital can play favorites
    	with whomever it chooses, including white men.

    		_ A.J.
    
                       

    re .202
    
    > Am I wrong or doesn't the constituition have something to say about 
    > this?
      
    You _are_ wrong. The constitution has nothing to say about this. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .204
    
    	oh so it is okay to have a policy where we only hire white males
    then. No such thing as government input to EEO. The constitution
    may not say anything but the government does.
	
        
    RE: off the subject
    
    	If someone wants to apply for a job that is titled college
    req then they should be allowed to. Of coursde this means
    they would come in at that level. eg If I wanted to switch to
    say hardware engineering and the only job was a slot as a hardware
    one at x dollars I would expect to be considered and if I got the
    job I would expect to be paid x dollars, even though in my current
    position I may be making 1.25x, so I take a pay cut.
    
    	If I want to apply for the job I should be allowed to.
    
	That is the context of the statement, no one should be denied
    the opportunity to apply for a job based off of some special 
    circumstances. whether that be college hire, eeo, aa what ever.
    
    mike

    	One of the problems with splitting NOTES into previous and current
    versions is the replay of some topics without the knowledge and
    opinions developed through the previous version of the file.  This
    note is a case in point!
    
    	And now to add a little:
    
    	1.  College Hire Program (I did not enter DEC through this progam)
           
            I suggest a talk with someone in Personnel to better unferstand
    this program.  In a nut shell, if a corporation does not commit
    to hiring x number of grads from y school then the corporation loses
    certain recruiting privelages (sp?).  As much as I am against measuring
    a person by the school they attended or the degrees they acquired
    EXCLUSIVELY I recognize the value of college recruiting to DEC and
    other corporations.
    
    	2.  AA / EEO etc. TODAY
    
    	I was raised in a very poor family.  Education beyond high school
    was at the expense of each of the children - no help from the parents.
    I was denied access to the 'better'schools because I couldn't afford
    them and did not have the grades to win scholarship money.  But,
    my background did not support a decision to complete high school
    let alone continue into college, anyway.
    
       I honestly believe if I had been born black I would not have
    achieved as much as I have in the 48 years I have been living. 
    Not because of a desire to improve but because of discrimination.
    
       My child (28 years old) has had a better financial life, so far,
    than I did because, in part, of my being a white male.  Her children,
    in turn, will also have a better financial life because I am a white
    male and their father is a white male.  Both he and I have less
    discrimination to fight against.
    
       The people of color of me era have had to fight a great deal
    harder to accomplish, in most cases, less tha I have accomplished.
    The children of these people of color start at a lower financial
    wrung on life's ladder than my daughter.  They have a harder fight
    ahead of them than either my daughter of her husband.  The third
    generation of the people of color will also be lower on life's ladder
    than the third generation of my family.  Because of this simple
    reality there are programs (AA and EEO) to help bring things to
    a long overdue balance.
    
       Any white male in the U.S who doesn't understand how discrimination
    has helped him DIRECTLY lacks insight into the results of many years
    of discrimination.
    
    Douglas

    	RE:  College Hires
    
    	There are some companies who don't have much of a training program
    	who absolutely *specialize* in stealing other companies' employees
    	(to get the benefit of *their* training programs.)  There are
    	even *computer* companies who use these "employee raiding" tactics.
    	Obviously, these folks are not big on offering college hires
    	(nor are they hurt by their lack of recruiting power at any
    	given school.)
    
    	Digital likes to "grow their own" experts, so to speak, so I
    	think there is a lot more to offering College Hire programs
    	than the commitments made to schools for recruitment.
    
    	Also, getting someone with a lot of experience (but who has
    	a bad attitude) is not a great bargain (even at half the price
    	that one might have had to pay for the person's years in the
    	workforce, had they taken something other than a College req.)
    	
	In short, as a wise person said to me about twenty minutes ago,
    	there is no clearly objective way to judge (in all cases) who
    	the "most qualified" candidate will be.  That is why EEO guidelines
    	exist (to make sure that entire groups of people are not locked
    	out of the employment scene.)  That is ALSO why I think that
    	there is much more involved in hiring someone than some purely
    	arbitrary (narrowly-defined) measure of credentials.
   
    	If Digital ends up offering disadvantaged groups a few more
    	opportunities than some other companies do, or more than anyone
    	here thinks they should, there are still other companies out
    	there that can be almost as cold and heartless as anyone here
    	would like.  No one is forced to work for a nice company like
    	DEC.  Me, I happen to like DEC's philosophy about trying to
    	do the right thing, even when it will never benefit me personally.

	re .199:

>    It's not Digitals responsibility to make sure college kids get a
>    break.  Digital should only be concerned with getting the most
>    qualified person it can for what ever amount of money it's offering.

	But that's a short-sighted view. Hiring the "college kids",
	even if in the short term a more experienced person would be
	more productive, is a long-term gain for Digital. They provide
	"new blood", new perspectives - if they went to a good school,
	they may know more about current research than the more
	experienced applicant. And this is really what "Valuing
	Differences" is about - the fact that people from different
	backgrounds, with different experiences, can bring something
	to a team, group, or company that isn't easily measured by
	traditional ideas of "qualifications", but is none the less
	useful. That's one reason to favor the "minority" when faced
	with two approximately equally "qualified" candidates.
	
	Another is the likelihood that the minority candidate has had
	to work harder to reach the point that they could apply for
	the job. I brought this up in V1, and will boil it down a
	little farther here - a well-known baseball sabermatician
	(sort of like a statistician), Bill James, in the course of
	one of his statistical studies found that black players
	progressed better from the same starting point than white
	players. His conclusion, which made sense to me, was that they
	did so because of the prejudice they faced throughout their
	lives - they worked harder at baseball because their other
	options were limited, and in the long run became better
	ballplayers than their white counterparts. If his conclusion
	is true, it would most likely apply to other careers as well.
	So, another reason to favor the minority among apparently
	equally qualified candidates is that they would be more likely
	to perform better in the long run.
	
	Mike

    The old AA argument has cropped up again in Soapbox.  The conclusion
    is that there is no "fair" solution.  Someone said, "Why should
    I be forced to pay the bill for wrongs I didn't commit?"  And I
    said, "True, but why should the victims be forced to pay the bill?"
    
    The point is that, at any given point in time, there is only so
    much good stuff (jobs, educational opportunities -- let's skip over
    material things to avoid accusations of socialism, 'cause I got
    tired of that real fast) to go around.  Now then, if you want to
    have a more equitable distribution of good stuff, either the haves
    need to give some of theirs up or the have nots need to wait for
    more good stuff to be created.  Now then, it's not really fair that
    the haves be deprived of their good stuff.  On the other hand, it's
    not really fair that the have nots, who have been waiting a long
    time already, be forced to wait even longer.
    
    Someone I discussed this with via mail came up with an appropriate
    analogy.  Suppose Jones and Smith start work in identical jobs.
    Jones manages to hold Smith back.  In thirty years, Jones is a
    millionaire and Smith is still in his old job.  Then Jones waves
    a magic wand and says, "Okay, Smith, no more unfair practices. 
    We're equal now, same opportunities and everything."
    
    First off, Smith has got at best a marginal chance of ever catching
    up with Jones.  They aren't equal and they probably never will be.
    Secondly, they don't have the same opportunities.  Jones has money,
    influence, contacts, and a history of performing.
    
    If Smith were able to prove that Jones caused him to be held back,
    he could file suit for damages and have a good chance of winning.
    Suppose, however, that Jones removed the obstacles from Smith's
    path by dying.  Can Smith sue Jones' children for damages?  Why
    should they pay for their parent's crimes?
            

    And yet again I bring up the point of discussion
    
    I contend that when hiring always hire the most qualified
    person . < - - notce the period
    
    I do not advocate hiring males over females or whites over blacks
    or unexperienced over experienced.
    
    I advocate give everyone the same shot.
    
    That's all.
    
    mike

    re .213
    
    Nothing new has been said here for some time.
    
    You continue to miss a central point: in the vast majority of the 
    cases I'm aware of, there is NO SUCH THING as "THE MOST QUALIFIED 
    PERSON". <- note the period

    You hire somebody because you have a job that needs doing. That job 
    exists not in a vacuum but in a complex environment. Skills, 
    personalities, and society all come into play, and all are factors 
    identifying who this mythical "most qualified person" might be.
    
    People do NOT bring empirical values of qualification to a job 
    interview, and even those jobs with written tests associated with 
    them should only be used to group candidates into broad groups of 
    more-or-less equals. The number you get on a test says absolutely 
    nothing about how well you would perform in the job in comparison 
    with someone else with similar (higher OR lower) scores.
    
    

  This is priceless.  It seems to me that if (note the conditional) a
  person:

   1. believes that preferential hiring is wrong, wrong, wrong, and
  
   2. finds out that he or she was hired because of preferential hiring
      practices, and

   3. has the courage of his or her convictions

  then he or she would resign forthwith.

  But I'd settle for a little more sensitivity to the issue and a little
  less hot air, rather than a resignation.

  JP

    another thing about college hires (yes, I was one) - they are often
    much more grateful for a job than someone who may have been out
    there in industry for many several years.  They often have a degree of
    enthusiasm that is difficult to quench, and they often will form
    a powerful allegiance to the company, resulting in fast learning
    time on the job, and a desire to perform their jobs extremely 
    well (at least, I do).   

    now for some dull statistics from a recent technical writing seminar
    at MIT (Writing for the Computer Industry):
    
                             Technical		Technical	Publication
    			     Writers	     Contributors	Managers
    
    Average Age			34		44		38
    Female			34%		57%		50%
    Male			66%		43%		50%
    Married			60%		57%		72%
    w/children @ home		27%		43%		50%
    2-career marriage		49%		28%		50%
    
    1987 average income		31,000		46,900		48,200
    range			22K-39K		40K-61K		38K-80K
    GENDER GAPS			male -4%     female -16%    female -10%
    
    
    

    	Now that the dust has cleared a bit (I hope,) I'd like to
    	tell a personal story about my first (and only) experience
    	with Affirmative Action (as a recipient of special treatment.)
    
    	It was at my first job with PBS.  I'm not sure how many of the
    	actual slots were designated as "AA" slots, but I know for sure
    	that when Federal and State funding was offered for certain
    	television programs, the 'string attached' to the money was
    	that the Producers had to prove that women and minorities were
    	being featured in key technical roles in the production.  This
    	procedure became most critical when we did a very expensive
    	special on the U.S. Bicentennial in *1976* (and *two* women, including
    	myself, were put in the very awkward position of *knowing* that
    	the Producers had been *forced* to put us into two of the *five*
    	camera positions during the show.)
    
    	The other woman on the show was given exactly one shot (a closeup
    	of the podium with a headshot of whoever was speaking into the
    	microphone at the time.)  They could have just locked the camera
    	down for that.  No big challenge.
    
    	My position was way out in the left side of the stands (we were
    	shooting in a huge new outdoor football stadium.)  I could barely
    	see a thing while it was light out.  Within a half hour after
    	the show would start, it would be too dark to use any more of
    	my shots at all.  I was to have one shot at the beginning and
    	be off for the rest of the 3 hour production.  They weren't
    	planning on risking any mistakes by a woman (even though I'd
    	been working for them for two years and was more experienced
    	than most of their other camera men.)

    	On the day of the actual show, they realized how crazy it was
    	to throw a camera away in the left side of the stands, so they
    	moved my camera to a position that was dead center in the
    	stands facing the whole show.  When I saw where they moved my
    	camera, I said to myself "Oh my God."  I knew enough about
    	television production to know that the show had just become
    	"the Suzanne Conlon show" (in terms of *camera angles*.)  I was
    	the only camera that could see everything.  Everyone else
    	was on the ground, so my camera would be online more often (and
    	for more types of shots) than all the ground cameras put
    	together.
    
    	The directors, producers, studio supervisor, and unit managers
    	took turns pleading with me not to make any serious mistakes
    	(and showing me with their facial expressions that they thought
    	the whole show was in big trouble, but that it was too late
    	to take it out of my hands.)  They were at the mercy of a woman,
    	and that was the worst thing they ever thought could happen
    	to them.
    
    	As for me, I realized that they had no idea how good I was on
    	camera (even though I had worked with them for two years.)
    	I knew that I could do a better job with one hand tied behind
    	my back than they even DREAMED I could, so I knew that I was
    	in a position to give them a big surprise.  (At any rate,
    	I knew they expected the worst from me, so whatever I did would
    	be more than they thought I was capable of doing.)  So I knew
    	I couldn't really lose, and I relaxed and went to work.
    
    	The dress rehearsal went very badly.  I had an orchestra playing
    	into my face and my headset was too weak.  I couldn't hear a
    	thing any of the directors said.  They really flipped out, but
    	there was nothing they could do to fix it.  (I went down after
    	the dress rehearsal and got a louder headset and tied it tight
    	around my face and throat so that I could hear better during
    	the show.)  They didn't see me do that.
    
    	I also started practicing shots from my position (while they
    	were all away from the control room freaking out.)  I came
    	up with some outrageous shots where I tilted and zoomed
    	simultaneously, enabling myself to start with one person in
    	the orchestra and blooming out to include everyone without
    	showing any dead space in the process.  No one saw me practicing.
    
    	When the actual show started, my headset worked and my shots
    	turned out to be so innovative (for our studio) that the directors
    	couldn't figure out where they came from all of a sudden.  (We'd
    	never shot an orchestra before, especially in such a large outdoor
    	area.)  They were stunned, and thrilled with the look I gave
    	the show.
    
    	The rest of the three hours went beautifully!  I had one great
    	number (in the climax of the show) where I did a slow zoom out
    	(with other cameras superimposed on my picture) that took almost
    	two minutes going out, and a minute and a half coming back.
    	(If you know anything about zooming a television studio camera,
    	a VERY slow zoom would take 10 seconds.  Two minutes was almost
    	a freaking miracle!  The directors and producers had never seen
    	anyone in our studio do a perfect zoom that slowly before, and
    	they never saw anyone do it ever again either.)  :-)  It was
    	a once in a lifetime kind of thing (for me, too.)  I just
    	sort of rose to the occasion when I saw what they wanted (and
    	we hadn't even TRIED this in the dress rehearsal.)  It was
    	completely off the cuff, and turned out perfectly!
    
    	The best single shot of the whole show came from the other woman,
    	though.  At one point, she turned away from the podium during
    	an ethnic dance number and caught an angle that showed light
    	rainfall gracefully flowing down onto a hula dancer's form that
    	was so shockingly gorgeous that the head producer yelled over
    	the headset (nearly giving us all heart attacks), "OH MY GOD!!!
    	That is the most beautiful shot I have EVER SEEN!!!"  :)
    
    	At the end of the show, the head Producer said into the headsets,
    	almost in tears, "Thank you all for the best show we have ever
    	done."
    
    	They never treated women the same after that.  The entire studio
    	finally realized that it doesn't matter what sex or color a
    	person is -- that talent and drive are all that counts.  Many
    	of the producers and directors came and told me the same personally
    	(and the studio supervisors had women TEACHING WHITE MEN how
    	to do their jobs for the first time.)  It was the most amazing
    	turnaround any of us could have possibly imagined.

    	Although I've never been part of a quota since then, the first
    	job with PBS was my intro into a technical career (during my
    	last two years of college.)  Without that chance, I'm not
    	sure what my life would have been like.  A lot of other women
    	and minorities benefited from that same studio because of
    	Affirmative Action, and I can tell you that almost ALL of us
    	went on to great careers from there.
    
    	All we needed was one chance to show what we could do.  AA gave
    	it to us (just one time.)  It was all we needed.

re:	< Note 88.219 by GALACH::CONLON >

	Would you mind if I printed this out and used it in the future
	when I hear people/local politicians who speak out against
	Affirmative Action programs ?

    
    
    	Many people in this conference seem to accuse those they don't
    	agree with as being "insensitive" to the problems of the oppressed.
    
    	I feel that not only am I sensitive but also I think I am an
    	idealistic fool. Why? because I thought women and ethnic minorities
    	simply wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. It is
    	coming through loud and clear that is not the case. 
    	You seem to want it biased your way for as long as it was
    	biased the other way. This is most depressing.
       
    	It's now apparent to me that down deep everyone is the
    	same. Everyone wants power, a bigger slice of the pie. If 10
    	million years ago women started out as physically stronger
    	than men, right now the woman power structure would
        be oppressing everyone. (under your definition of oppression).  
    
                     throwing in the towel.
    			   A.J.            
    
     Ps.  It seems that a logical argument will always wilt in the face
    	  of emotion. 

    Back in the early seventies, I had to hang around a lot in PK3
    (now PKO3), just waiting, and I got to read just about everything
    posted on walls there.  One clipping I found especially interesting,
    and I'll reproduce the gist of it here.  Now, I don't remember the
    exact percentages, but they were both over 71%.
    
    	A group of one hundred managers was given a brief job
    	description, and were told there were two candidates for
    	the job.  One candidate was John Doe, a recent college
    	graduate, and the other was Jane Roe, who had been with
    	the company for nearly twenty years, and worked in the
    	department where the new job was.
    
    	They were asked who they would hire and why.  Around 73%
    	said that they would hire John Doe, because they valued
    	the enthusiasm and new insights he would bring.
    
    	Another group of one hundred managers was given the same job
    	description, and same two candidates.  This time, however,
    	Jane Doe was the recent college graduate, and John Roe was the
	loyal old-timer.
    
    	They too were asked who they would hire and why.  Around 76%
    	said that they would hire John Roe, because they valued
    	the loyalty and experience he would bring.
    
    So, A.J., while you continue to proclaim your desire for absolute
    merit hiring, you do not seem to understand that (as would seem
    from the above) about 20% of hiring is based on subconsciously
    held prejudices -- which the hirer is unaware of and would probably
    deny!  What some people are trying to do is find a way over, around,
    or through this murky handicap, and EEO and AA are methods which
    seem to work somewhat, so they are used.
    
    Do you understand?
    
    							Ann B.

    Much as you would like to believe that it has, no, nothing has
    changed.
    
    							Ann B.

    re .205:
    
        > re: .204
        >
    	> oh so it is okay to have a policy where we only hire white males
    	> then.
    
    That was neither said nor implied.
    
    	> ... no one should be denied
    	> the opportunity to apply for a job based off of some special 
    	> circumstances. whether that be college hire, eeo, aa what ever.
          
    I think there is no dispute that anybody can _apply_ for any job. The
    question is who will be _given_ the job. A college hire position
    is one where the requirement are "college degree, little or no
    experiance", this is essentially no different than a senior engineer
    position being one that requires "college degree, 5-10 years
    experiance". Again people are being "discriminated against" based
    purely on when they graduated. I remain unconvinced that this is
    equivalent to hiring based solely on race or sex.
    
    Re .212         
    
    > -< Young Guns = Enthusiasm + Concepts >-
    > A person graduates from college and Digital and some other large
    > corportations hire the top 20% of graduates - even in tough times
    > when a generic "hiring freeze" may be in place.  This is because
    > large and successful corporations see their role of good citizen
    > includes providing opportunity for "new blood" to enter the work
    > force.  This is to inject newest levels of training into Digital.
    > This does not "compete" with experience but augments it.
    
    It has nothing to do with DIGITAL trying to be a good citizen. It
    is purely for the good of the corporation to acquire the "best and
    the brightest". Digital has no interest in "providing opportunity
    for the new blood to enter the work force". It is in DIGITAL's own
    best interest to get the new blood into _its_own_ work force.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Just to add to the digression (I'm entitled!  I contributed to the
    main topic already):
    
    Not all recent college graduates hired by the company are "college
    hires."  I was hired less than six months past graduation, but I
    sincerely doubt that the req was for a "college hire."  I was hired
    because I had experience with support.  Oddly enough, many "college
    hires" do have a lot of experience.
    
    Another random bit:
    
    When the college computing center was looking for another employee,
    they really wanted to hire a minority for AA purposes.  It wasn't
    to the point of *needing* to be a minority, but they considered
    different places to advertise that would attract minority candidates.
    Hard enough to recruit people to nigh-unto-rural New Hampshire as
    it is.  At that time, of about 10 employees, 3-4 were women, including
    the head of User Services.

'Reparation'

I cannot agree that "Reparation" is in order.  If you want Reparations, be
prepared to pay Reparations for all that men have suffered at the hands, minds,
lips of women as well.

Both sexes have dealt unfairly with each other in various ways.  I feel it's a
waste of time to go back and scream back and forth 'you owe me!', when the
future is ahead of us to dealt with. 

"There's not enough jobs for everyone, that means someone isn't going to be
hired."

That is true, but that is not a justification for discrimination.

"This was meant as a paraphrase of words I've often heard about how one woman's
action can effect other women."

This is known as the saying "One Bad Apple spoils the Bunch", and is not a
problem that minorities suffer anymore then anyone else.  This problem is the
result of overgeneralization, and affects everyone at one time or another.

'rape' ""That's a man for ya"" 

Now who has that attitude?  Not one I would care to have.  You don't see me
saying that every woman would do all of the things that treat men unfairly.

"And I would consider one of the "new mistakes" we should steer AWAY from is
turning the word "discrimination" into something that can be used *against*
minorities in order to *prevent* them from making the difficult progress that
lies ahead."

I agree with your statement as written, however, I disagree that the cases under
discussion where the majority is discriminated against occur "in order to
*prevent* them from making the difficult progress that lies ahead".  I do not
believe that the goal is to prevent minorities from making progress. I believe
that the goal is for everyone to be treated fairly, and having no
discrimination. 

"Well, your impression was dead wrong.  That's why it's a good idea not to try
speaking for me."

So where am I wrong?  Seriously, I would like to know.

"Such as white skin and male sexual organs"

Do you believe that such shallow indicators of job worthiness are still used? Do
you feel that no effort is made to determine the actual "intelligence,
dedication, strength of character"?   Heck, you make it sound like I should be
able to walk into any business and get whatever job I wish, just by the virtue
of being a white male!  'Tan't So...  (I'm not saying you believe that)

I don't think that scoring higher on a test, or getting along better in a group,
even though the test *may* be biased, or the group *may* be biased means that I
got my job because of my sexual organs and my skin color. 

"I often feel that (irrelevant examples) then *ALL* women are on trial"

Would you rather you were allowed to be as inaccurate as you wished?  Why?

"BACKLASH RAGE"

Backlash rage is one thing, and I understand that men in this conference may at
any time be subjected to anger from women over the way that they have been
treated in the past.  I understand that expressing that anger is perhaps
necessary for them to heal from their experiences in their past.  I can accept
that. 

But it is quite another thing for you to expect us who are working toward a
solution to "Pay Up" for the past.  You take away any motivation we might have
had for correcting the situation.  What the heck, we're already paying for it,
and we're going to have to keep on paying for it, so why should we bother
exerting more energy to fix it? 

I also feel that even though it is necessary for them to express that anger, it
is necessary for them to keep from losing the focus of that anger, and
projecting that anger at *all* men, *all* the time, *every* where, instead of
When, where, who, why, and how their experience happened.  To lose the focus is
to unnecessarily subject to anger those who do not deserve it, and drive away
those who could be supportive.  Losing the focus can also make the
overgeneralization the subjective reality, and being angry at everyone,
everyplace, all the time... 

"But everyone's NOT on an equal footing. *That's* what we've been trying to
say."

But hiring a lesser qualified minority (the case in point) does not put them on
an equal footing.  It means that they will do a poorer job (all other things
being equal), they and the discriminatory policy will be resented, and it will
actually *hurt* their cause.  The only thing that will put them on an equal
footing is them/us working to make them as qualified.

"if a college hire behaves immaturely, the response is,"well, he's young, and
he'll grow out of it" [sorry, I've NEVER heard anyone say, "well, she's
young"...etc.]."

I have heard the behavior of women dismissed in the same manner.

"many of you have ever known a woman or a person of color who seemed incompetent
and underqualified for her or his job? ... women and people of color are more
visible, and so their mistakes are more visible" 

On the contrary, I know of more majority incompetents because there are more of
them. 

"We need to go out of our way to make up for societies injustices."

Yes, but the best way to do that is not to legalize and make official policy of
discrimination.  This sort of thing sends very strong mixed signals that any
means justifies a good intention, which I strongly disagree with.

I do not see Steve's divorce example as being a complete reversal.  That you see
it as one, I feel, may be an indication that you do not understand his side of
the issue. 

Your example goes past being a complete reversal in the following ways:

"only women and racial minorities would be permitted to hold 98% of the elected
offices"

Anybody have any statistics on this?  I am sure the present figure is less
then 98%.

"all the top slots would HAVE to be filled by women and racial minorities"

I make the point of comparing this to the "present situation" because that
is what needs to be fixed.  We don't need to fix the past after it is already
fixed (or do we?).

"How is this any different at all than AA?"

I see college hiring as being more drastic then AA as well.  I wonder if that
policy has anything to do with the fact that most college hires don't stay long
enough to be elegible for pension benifits before moving on?  I think there are
a lot of economic reasons for the policy, but I do not defend it. 

"You don't own this corporation -- they do."

Whatch it, it's quite likely that many people here in this conference *do*
own a piece of DEC through the DEC stock plan. :-)

"then college hires end up working on the same/similar work as the oldtimers. Or
they will eventually, right?"

Yes, once they become oldtimers. :-)  That kind of blunts your point.  I
agree with SM that college hires are not in competition for the same jobs...

But then again, the fact that there aren't any secretaries after my job doesn't
mean they aren't being discriminated against in some other fashion.

JMB

	RE:  .221
    
    	>You seem to want it biased your way for as long as it was
    	>biased the other way. This is most depressing.
      
    		It was "biased the other way" for 5,000 years.  Do you
    		honestly think that most of us are making plans that
    		far ahead?  :)
    
    		If you check back aways, I strongly defended *YOUR*
    		right, as a *white male* college hire, to have received
    		preferential hiring treatment from DEC.  How does that
    		fit into some kind of supposed scheme to have things
    		biased in favor of minorities only?  

    	>It's now apparent to me that down deep everyone is the
    	>same. Everyone wants power, a bigger slice of the pie. If 10
    	>million years ago women started out as physically stronger
    	>than men, right now the woman power structure would
        >be oppressing everyone. (under your definition of oppression).  
    
    		This doesn't follow from anything that has been discussed
    		here so far, so I will assume it is meant as an emotional 
    		outburst.  
        
        >Ps.  It seems that a logical argument will always wilt in the face
    	>of emotion. 

    		Ah yes, one last stereotype about women for the road.
    		(I always get a kick out of this one because my B.A.
    		degree is in Philosophy, with Symbolic Logic as my
    		specialty.)  I love it!  :)

	RE:  .227

    	> I believe that the goal is for everyone to be treated
    	> fairly, and having no discrimination.
    
    	That is a great goal, of course.  However, as someone said
    	earlier:
    
  	"As I said in V1 of this file, it's all very well for people to
  	(finally!) agree that it is unfair to make some people run a footrace
  	with one foot in a bucket.  But it rings hollow when the people who are
  	already two laps ahead say, "Now that things are fair, I'll just keep
  	this two-lap lead."
 
    	(I thought it was worth repeating at this point.)  Not much
    	else is.  :)
    

    Re: .189 (Suzanne's response to my "thought experiment")
    
>    	Steve, the problem I find with your proposal is that you have
>    	suggested a complete and total (180 degree) turnaround for men
>    	and women (when it comes to the kind of treatment they receive
>    	in divorce cases.)

    I was hoping that you would take a broader view at the point I was
    trying to make rather than picking nits at the specific proposal,
    but I suppose that's my fault for trying to suggest a "correction"
    that is in actual proportion to the inequity.  Maybe I should have
    put it this way:  Judges would be directed to ignore all issues
    of relative competency and financial status, and award custody to
    the fathers in 70% of the cases (figure of 70% is quite generous,
    considering the 98% lockout of men today).
    
    Better yet, let's throw away the example entirely, and ask a quite
    simple question:
    
    	If you believe that quotas and other acts of discrimination
    	in favor of women, with the intent of correcting for past biases
    	against women in certain areas, are good, is it equally good for 
    	there to be similar quotas and acts of discrimination in favor of
        men for those areas where the biases have been against men?
    	If not, why not?

    One counterargument I can predict is the "5,000 years", which has
    been blithely tossed about as the supposed duration of time that
    women have suffered salary discrimination.  One really can't argue
    this any more than one can argue about "how high is up", as the
    statement is so general as to be void of any meaning.  But even
    if one accepts it at face value, what is there about length of time
    that makes one-way discrimination acceptable?  What if it were 1,000
    years?  100 years?  10 years?  At what point do you change your
    mind?  Isn't the whole idea of AA to improve the lot of the oppressed
    class NOW?  You can't erase history.  Or do you intend to punish
    men for 5,000 years more?
    
    Quotas, etc., are too convenient, and too mindless.  They look good
    on paper (Yes, your honor, we have hired the requisite 82.319%
    female candidates, no matter what their qualifications were...)
    Sure, AA has given a foot in the door to some very competent women
    who MIGHT otherwise have been shut out, but it also means that some
    very deserving man was possibly denied a job because he didn't fit 
    the fashion of the hour.   I don't believe in "the ends justify
    the means."
    
    I suppose it boils down to this - is the cry for "equal rights"
    just a sham?  Is equality a one-way street?
    
    				Steve

    	RE:  .230
    
    	Steve, you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented my point
    	of view so badly in your note that I hardly know where to begin
    	(so I won't bother saying anything at all about it.)
    
    	Good grief!
    

    re: .231
    
    I could copy your last reply 
    
>    < Note 88.231 by NEXUS::CONLON >
>                             -< Not even close... >-
>
>    	RE:  .230
>    
>    	Steve, you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented my point
>    	of view so badly in your note that I hardly know where to begin
>    	(so I won't bother saying anything at all about it.)
>    
>    	Good grief!
>    

    and say the same thing about your note .228
    
    you have taken out of context what AJ was trying to say.
    
    here is .228

    with a few insights
    
    
>	RE:  .221
>    
>    	>You seem to want it biased your way for as long as it was
>    	>biased the other way. This is most depressing.
>      
>    		It was "biased the other way" for 5,000 years.  Do you
>    		honestly think that most of us are making plans that
>    		far ahead?  :)
>    
>    		If you check back aways, I strongly defended *YOUR*
>    		right, as a *white male* college hire, to have received
>    		preferential hiring treatment from DEC.  How does that
>    		fit into some kind of supposed scheme to have things
>    		biased in favor of minorities only?  

	Your way is a generic term this had to do with reparation
    	A lot of the replys here seem to indicate that for many years
    	there was/is discrimination. Because some groups have been 
    	adversly effected there is a general feeling from some authors
    	that these groups should be given " a break" for as many years
    	as they were/are being discriniated against.
    
    	Maybe I am wrong but I get the genearl feeling that most people
    	feel that at some point we will hopefully not need EEO/AA.
    
    	So when those programs can be phased out we should have a system
    	that is non-discriminatory. Well how long that system is in
	place is what is being questioned. 
    
    	AJ and I both admit that the college hire program is 
    	a dicriminatory program. Why do you think only white males
    	get help from the college hire program? 
    
>
>    	>It's now apparent to me that down deep everyone is the
>    	>same. Everyone wants power, a bigger slice of the pie. If 10
>    	>million years ago women started out as physically stronger
>    	>than men, right now the woman power structure would
>        >be oppressing everyone. (under your definition of oppression).  
>    
>    		This doesn't follow from anything that has been discussed
>    		here so far, so I will assume it is meant as an emotional 
>    		outburst.  

	What is being said is if the female were the power group instead
    	of the males they would by act - by way of human nature - the
    	same way as men do today.     
    
>        
>        >Ps.  It seems that a logical argument will always wilt in the face
>    	>of emotion. 
>
>    		Ah yes, one last stereotype about women for the road.
>    		(I always get a kick out of this one because my B.A.
>    		degree is in Philosophy, with Symbolic Logic as my
>    		specialty.)  I love it!  :)
>    

    	NO the point is it is impossible to argue any point logically
    	when someone is emotionally tied to it. YOU assumed he was refering
    	to females. 
    
    	An example of this to day is that movie the last temptation
    	of christ, people are saying it is blasphemy, and christians are
    	being told not to see it. Others could argue that it is a movie
    	that represents the directors point of view on a subject.
    
    	If you point the 1 person of each view in a room you would not
    	get anything out of it cause the emotion tied to one of the
    	occupants.
    
    	There is 1 thing I really laugh at in ready these notes and
	it is where a line is taked out of context and made to look like
    	a viewpoint, I am amazed it happens so much.
    
    
    	Would the solution to all hiring pratices be 
    
    	give a written test - or questionaire - that is identical
    
    	the person applying for the job would have a number assigned.
    
    	then the best number is chosen.
    
    	this way the fact the person is hidden from the hiring manager
    	
    	would insure a better level searching for qualifications.
    
    	mike
    

    	RE:  .232
    
    	Mike, what makes you think that anyone has set some sort of
    	mandatory time limit on how long minorities should be given
    	opportunities?  The thing is, most minorities can trace back
    	the discrimination a long, long time (as in hundreds or
    	thousands of years.)  It is absurd to assume that we would 
    	expect to hold anyone to a time frame like that.  It makes
    	no sense at all.
    
    	As far as how women would act if we were in power...  There
    	are quite a few notes describing exactly that (because our
    	culture *was* matriarchal at one time.)  No, we didn't treat
    	men the same way that men later treated us (so obviously,
    	it is not part of "human nature" to oppress when one gender
    	is in power.)
    
    	At no point did I say that *only* white males benefit from
    	the College Hire program.  I kept mentioning white males because
    	I kept seeing things like "you want the bias to go your way"
    	(or whatever) and I was trying to point out that bias for some
    	white males had been approved in this topic, as well.

Re: .233
    
>    	As far as how women would act if we were in power...  There
>    	are quite a few notes describing exactly that (because our
>    	culture *was* matriarchal at one time.)  No, we didn't treat
>    	men the same way that men later treated us (so obviously,
>    	it is not part of "human nature" to oppress when one gender
>    	is in power.)
    
	These are opinions in a heavily female conference.  I hope
	you're not assuming that if women had been in charge through 
	history there would be no problems today. Human nature is
	basically the same for everyone. Look at what happens in
	*relationships*. All women are not as naturally benevolent
	as you suzanne. 



		- Dave

    Re: .231
    
    Suzanne:
    
    Thank you for your thought-provoking and insightful reply.  It is
    the ultimate model of logic and clarity, thus you need say nothing more.
    Perhaps some of the other readers would care to actually respond
    to my inquiry.
    
    				Steve

    	RE:  .235
    
    	You directed your question to me, or so I thought, and yet it
    	had nothing to do with my stated point of view.  If it was
    	meant generically (to address other sorts of views other than
    	mine,) then that explains why it seemed so odd that you wrote
    	it to me.
    
    	Sorry for the confusion, if that's what it was.
    

    	RE:  .234
    
    	There are other matriarchal cultures that can be seen more recently
    	(in other parts of the world,) and to my knowledge, none of
    	them have subjugated the males in their society.
    
    	Of course, the men in these cultures were still warlike with
    	each other and other groups, even though the women held the
    	power (property ownership and family lineage, etc.)
    
    	What that says about human nature is anyone's guess...  :)

    Re: .230
    
    >but it also means that some very deserving man was possibly denied
    >a job because he didn't fit the fashion of the hour.
    
    One thing to keep in mind:  For a lot of jobs, especially entry-level
    jobs, there is a pool of deserving candidates.  When one person
    is given a job, a number of deserving people are 'denied' the job,
    regardless of whether that one person is male or female.  It's not
    something that happens only with AA-type hiring practices, although
    you can build a stronger case for having been gypped of a job if
    AA was involved.

    re: .221
    
         "If 10 million years ago women started out as physically stronger
          than men, right now he woman power structure would be oppressing
          everyone."
    
         "It seems that a logical argument will always wilt in the face
          of emotion."
    
    What LOGICAL argument?
    
    
    re: .223
    
         "Could it be that a decade has made this [discrimination]
          obsolete?"  Italics mine.
    
    I doubt it.
    
    
    re: .227
                                             
    What have men suffered at the hands, minds and lips of women?  Me
    thinks men need 'repares' for other reasons...
    
         "There is not enough jobs for everyone, that means that someone
          isn't going to be hired."
    
    RIGHT!  Usually women & minorities, but that is merely a coincidence
    and we're just trying to read more into it so we can oppress white
    males.                                 
                                            
         "So where am I wrong?  Seriously, I would like to know."
    
    Is this a Mayor Koch question?..."so how am I doing?"  Do either of
    you really want to know?  I'll get serious, but you go first.
    
         '"Such as white skin and male sexual organs."'
         "Do you believe that such shallow indicators of job worthiness
          are still used?"
   
    YES.  A white penis is critical for job performance.
    
    In the immortal words of Robin Tyler...
    
    "Mr. Jones, why do I make 33% less than Mr. Smith and we're doing
    the same job?"
    
    "Why, Mary, it's because you can't stand up to pee, and that's worth
    the 33%."
    
       
         "I also feel that even though it is necessary for them to express
          that anger, it is necessary for them to keep from losing the
          focus of that anger, and projecting that anger at *all* men,
          *all* the time, *every* where..."
    
    You're right, it's not *all* men, but *ALWAYS* men.  And we certainly
    shouldn't direct anger at sensitive men like yourself who *justifiably*
    want to eliminate EEO/AA programs.  
    
    In all these justifications for elimination of EEO/AA programs,
    elimination being suggested by not *all* men, but *ALWAYS* men,
    the quote that comes to mind is...
    
    "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance (white, male brilliance
    that is), baffle them with b*llsh*t.
         

    Re: .240
    
    Don't be so quick to conclude that those against quotas are
    necessarily in favor of dismantling EEO/AA.  I think you're
    seeing an attack where there is none intended.  At least in
    my own case, I am definitely for equal opportunity and ways to
    encourage more of the traditionally excluded classes to get
    into the mainstream.  I am just uncomfortable with the methods
    being used, and a touch of what I perceive as hypocrisy in the
    more fervent AA proponents.
    
    Re: everyone
    
    I would still like some feeling on whether supporters of
    AA biases feel comfortable with that method used against
    their own group in areas where they have been "passive
    recipients" (oh, what a lovely phrase) of benefits due to
    past biases.

    					Steve

    	RE:  .241
    
    	Name one of the ways in which you feel white men have traditionally
    	been on the receiving end of a cultural disadvantage, and maybe
    	you'll get some responses.
    
    	BTW, I don't think divorce is a good example because we've
    	been discussing employment opportunities here (and also, because
    	I think it would be a bit tasteless to use children as the
    	possible items of barter when talking about what kind of a trade
	people would be willing to make to even or possibly settle the
    	score on this issue.)  None of us are ready to play Solomon
    	quite yet in this area, and I would feel uncomfortable with
    	the idea of even *discussing* trading children for points in
    	fairness.

    Re: .242
    
    >Name one of the ways in which you feel white men have traditionally
    >been on the receiving end of a cultural disadvantage
    
    *Cultural* disadvantage?  Well, there's the whole institution of
    etiquette.  The woman gets to sit back and enjoy being taken care
    of, while the man gets to run around opening doors, fetching coats,
    and generally playing factotum.  That could be considered a
    disadvantage.  (I consider it a disadvantage, but I'm lazy.)
    
    On the other hand, if you want something analogous to employment
    opportunities, well -- there ain't a whole lot in life that's
    analogous.  Possibly admissions practices in nursing or secretarial
    schools, though I don't know if there's a gender bias built in to
    the process.  Maybe hiring practices for the traditionally female
    jobs.  "I'm sorry, we can't hire you, we need a white male secretary
    to fulfill our quotas."

    re .243
    
    It sounds like a case of blaming the victim.  Women demanded that
    we be taken care of vs. women were systematically blocked and
    aggressively punished for trying to be full-fledged adult beings...
    Do try to remember that it wasn't women making the rules when the
    patriarchy was built.
    
    You're right, there ain't a whole lot in life that's analagous to
    blocked employment opportunities when it comes to white men.
    "Possibly" nursing and secretary schools were discriminatory about
    their admission practices?  Try again.  How about Medical schools
    and MBA programs discriminating against women and minorities?  That
    may be just a teensie weensie more accurate, yes?
    
    I just know of tons of white men who have been beating down the
    doors to Katharyn Gibbs school so they could be stuck in low-paying
    jobs where they are unappreciated and where the boss calls them honey
    and asks them to buy gifts for their wives/lovers... 
    

re:        < Note 88.160 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "As true as water, as true as light" >

>   in re .158
>    
>    Roger, Ann was talking in a historical fashion, setting things
>    up as they were in the past...can we please use colored and
>    negro in that limited sense with out offense...I doubt any
>    active =wn= contributor is insensitive on the Black/other name
>    issue.

        I am  sorry.   I didn't realize she was writing in a historical
        fashion. I must admit that I am slightly offended by your reply
        though.  I never said I was offended.   I wasn't accusing anyone
        of being insensitive. I have received mail  messages  from
        sincere  noters  asking  me if such-and-such name is offensive.
        Some people use terms that are racist and sexist because they
        just don't know any better. 

        
        
>        thankyou


        You're welcome.

        				Roger

re:        < Note 88.175 by CADSE::SHANNON "look behind you" >

>
>    As I said a long time ago
>    
>    give the job to the most qualified person
>    
>    and give every perosn an equal opportunity to get that job.
>    
>    This means no quotas and no discrimination.
>    
>    mike


        I was  thinking last night that probably the highest percentage
        of the most talented Engineers that I have met  at  DEC  either
        don't have degrees or don't have degrees in engineering.  I can
        think  of  a consulting engineer who has a degree from a [gasp]
        state school.

        So, what  does  *qualified*  mean?  If  DEC  decided  to  use a
        guideline  to  measure all of us, I wonder how many of us would
        be purged?


        					Roger
        

    One of the best (awards, dinners, name recognition) managers I
    know in the company has only a high school education.  And no,
    this manager never took any special courses in How-to-Do-It.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: .244
    
    Try to pay attention to context; it's extraordinarily helpful. 
    The issue is trying to find examples where men had been on the short
    end of discrimination.  I offered a couple of possibilities.

"I hardly know where to begin"

You *could* start by answering the question posed if you felt like it.

"Answer the question, or we'll gag you!"
"What's the question?"
"Gag him!"

Firesign Theatre...  No Bozo's on this Bus... :-)

"(because our culture *was* matriarchal at one time.)  No, we didn't treat men
the same way that men later treated us (so obviously, it is not part of "human
nature" to oppress when one gender is in power.)"

The truth of a lot of this depends on who you ask...

"Well, your impression was dead wrong.  That's why it's a good idea not to try
speaking for me." JMB

Is this a Mayor Koch question?..."so how am I doing?" E

No, it is not a Mayor Koch question... why did you think that?

"YES.  A white penis is critical for job performance."

Well...  I must admit that I can't argue with that arguement, seriously held,
whether it is held by someone who agrees with it, or disagrees with it. All I
can say is that in my opinion, your statement does not reflect reality. 

"You're right, it's not *all* men, but *ALWAYS* men."

What about all the women telling other women how to behave like "ladies?"
etc..........

"sensitive men like yourself who *justifiably* want to eliminate EEO/AA
programs."

simmer down...  I never said that I wanted to eliminate EEO/AA programs. You
seem to have brought an awfull lot of assumptions in here with you, about me,
whom you know only a few pages about, colored by your past experience.

"justifications for elimination of EEO/AA programs, elimination being suggested
by not *all* men, but *ALWAYS* men"

What of the minority fireman who didn't see the justice in the 'affirmative
action' plan he was affected by?  There *are* women in this note who disagree
with various affirmative action plans on various principles.  If you wish to
see, go back and look...

"I don't think divorce is a good example because we've been discussing
employment opportunities here"

I don't see why affirmative action couldn't be just as righteously applied to
divorce. 

"I think it would be a bit tasteless to use children as the possible items of
barter when talking about what kind of a trade people would be willing to make
to even or possibly settle the score on this issue." 

I think this is a copout.  You are ducking the issue.

'name some employment issues where men have been discriminated'

It is quite well known that 'employment issues' are the male forte.  It is in
other areas of life, such as children where men are discriminated against. Add
enough qualifiers, narrow the specification of what you want down enough, and
you have succeeded in making the question meaningless. 

Nevertheless, here is one for you...  How many men are in childcare positions?
Should we demand affirmative action untill 49% of the childcare positions are
filled by men?

JMB 

    If you are insistent on sticking to discriminatory employment
    practices, PRYDE::ERVIN (sorry, I don't know your first name) mentioned
    a good one in passing - nursing.
    
    There are many men who try to enter the nursing profession and make
    a career out of it, but they are blocked at every turn.  Male nurses
    are paid less than females, are prohibited from performing certain
    nursing duties simply because they are male, and as a result, since
    they get less experience than their female counterparts, advance
    more slowly in the profession.  Most men quit rather than fight
    the system.  Why don't we have EEO/AA for nurses?
    
    My earlier suggestion of child custody was meant to be a well-known
    example of where men have been denied a fair chance, because of
    the long-outstanding cultural bias against men, the women who are
    encouraged to soak their ex-husbands for all they can get plus snatch
    away the father's children, because they are told they can get away
    with it (and they do), and the law looks the other way.  If that
    isn't a classic case of sexual discrimination against men, I don't
    know what is.
    
    But the point wasn't whether or not discrimination in divorces
    was directly comparable to employment discrimination, but instead
    was to give a focus to a question of whether or not people were
    willing to see AA-type biases work the other way.  
    
    However, I see this won't get anywhere, because people are so hung
    up on the fine print, so as to avoid the troubling larger question.
    
    
    I said earlier that I did not object to the goals of EEO and AA,
    but did object to the methods being used.  If most of us can agree
    (I hope?) that discrimination of any sort is inherently bad, can
    we try thinking of some mechanisms other than quotas to solve the
    problem?
    
    (Sadly, I feel that some of the participants in this discussion
    think that discrimination (in their favor) is a good thing, as
    a punishment or revenge.  I hope I'm just imagining things....)
    
    					Steve

    Well, if discrimination against men isn't appropriate here as a
    basis of comparison, how about discrimination against Blacks,
    Orientals, and Jewish people?
    
    Many, many white women did indeed actively discriminate against
    people in the above groups in the past. In fact there are times,
    given the degree to which the above groups have been discriminated
    against, that I get very uncomfortable with women who talk about
    how men have put them down and never accept their/our responsibility
    for putting down other groups.
    
    Given that, historically, white women have abused Blacks as slaves,
    Orientals as servants, and Jewish people as merchants, servants,
    etc...then we also owe a debt. 
    
    Further, over the long periods of history, men and women of all
    races have developed bonds of trust and love and friendship that
    went way beyond the socially dictated norms.  Many, many
    mariages, friendships, sibling relationships have existed over
    the years where individual men treated individual women as equals
    and encouraged their advancement in what ever ways they could.
    Somehow I doubt that the number of such relationships between white
    women and their slaves, servants, etc. in anyway equals the supportive
    friendly or affectionate relationships between the women and the
    men in their lives.
    
    If we women are to be entirely honest, then if we ask for any kind
    of balancing of inequalities over time, then we should be volunatarily
    holding back in favor of those whom our ancesstresses have oppressed.
    
    Bonnie

	RE:  .252
    
    	> But the point wasn't whether or not discrimination in divorces
    	> was directly comparable to employment discrimination, but instead
    	> was to give a focus to a question of whether or not people were
    	> willing to see AA-type biases work the other way.  
    
    	What difference does it make whether we would agree to hypothetical
    	quotas going the other way or not?  Would it make the AA quota
    	more acceptable to you somehow if you knew for sure that *WE*
    	would be willing to allow quotas that go against us?  (I don't
    	understand the connection here.)  Are you trying to prove to
    	us that AA is wrong on the basis of "Well, you guys wouldn't
    	want it if it didn't benefit YOU!"
    
    	For the RECORD, I would agree to support a quota involving a
    	College Hire even if it meant that *I* *personally* would
    	lose a job to a white male.  (That quota does NOT benefit me.)
    
    	Secondly, if I were a man, I would have no problem with AA
    	(or College Hire) quotas. 
    
    	Thirdly, even as a woman, I am no longer in a position where
    	AA can benefit me anymore, but I agree with it in principle
    	because I think it could still help others.  (So, even NOW,
    	this quota does not benefit me.)
    
    	>However, I see this won't get anywhere, because people are so hung
    	>up on the fine print, so as to avoid the troubling larger question.
    
    	So I guess you thought you could shame us into doing what you
    	wanted us to do by attributing some ulterior motive to our
    	not wanting to inject this guaranteed giant rathole into this
    	debate.
    
    	>I said earlier that I did not object to the goals of EEO and AA,
    	>but did object to the methods being used.  If most of us can agree
    	>(I hope?) that discrimination of any sort is inherently bad, can
    	>we try thinking of some mechanisms other than quotas to solve the
    	>problem?
    
    	Sure.  If *huge numbers* of the majority were to take it upon
    	themselves to promote women's rights in the workplace, then
    	the government would not have the NEED to force compliance with
    	EEO regulations (and this whole section of the movement could
    	stop being the uphill struggle of the minority, with some
    	majority agreement, and could become an accepted part of our
    	culture more rapidly.)
    
    	>(Sadly, I feel that some of the participants in this discussion
    	>think that discrimination (in their favor) is a good thing, as
    	>a punishment or revenge.  I hope I'm just imagining things....)
    
    	Your comment sounds more like an accusation (coming from your
    	reaction to the debate) than an attempt to understand anyone
    	else's position here.  
    
    	Speaking only for myself, I have no interest at all in punishing
    	anyone for past wrongs.  I want the option (in my life) of being
    	able to support myself, always, because I haven't the slightest
    	interest in being supported by a man (ever) and have even
    	*less* interest in getting any man's money as part of a divorce.
    
    	I just want the option to support myself with the same financial
    	resources that would be available to me if I were a MAN with
    	the same education, talent, commitment, and performance that
    	I offer as a woman now.  (In other words, I want the same employ-
    	ment opportunities that I would have gotten if I had been born
    	male.)
    
    	That's it in a nutshell, as far as I'm concerned.

    	RE:  .253
    
    	Bonnie, I absolutely agree with you that white women have
    	the same sort of responsibility to help other races/creeds
    	overcome the effects of past wrongs as much as white men 
    	should (hopefully) feel it for women and other minorities.
    
    	I would support a program that dealt strictly with people
    	of color (even if it meant that I would personally lose the
    	opportunity for a job I wanted because they needed to fill
    	a quota for a man or a woman of color.)  Same goes for programs
    	involving other groups (such as the physically challenged.)
    
    	I see no problem with that at all.
    
    	In general, I don't mind losing *some* opportunities for
    	new jobs (as long as I know that I, as a woman, am not
    	part of a systematic attempt to block my opportunities
    	completely.)  I definitely support the idea of providing
    	special opportunities that benefit disadvantaged groups
    	of which I am not a member.  I'd like to see things become
    	more balanced for *ALL* of us (including white males.)
    
    	At NO point do I hope to see a systematic blocking of
    	all/most white men in the area of employment.  I just want
    	to see things more balanced between ALL groups.

    Re: .254
    
    >Would it make the AA quota more acceptable to you somehow if you
    >knew for sure that *WE* would be willing to allow quotas that go
    >against us?
    
    Does sound that way, doesn't it?  It's nice to know that other people
    would be willing to do for you what you're being asked to do for
    them.  Reaffirms one's faith in humanity and all.
    
    >If *huge numbers* of the majority were to take it upon themselves
    >to promote women's rights in the workplace, then the government
    >would not have the NEED to force compliance with EEO regulations
    
    EEO regulations by themselves will not create a more balanced mix
    of workers.  Minority members need to have equal access to training
    and education, so they are qualified for jobs.  Give them access
    to the prerequisites to employment, then they can take advantage
    of the employment opportunities.

	RE: .256
    
    	>EEO regulations by themselves will not create a more balanced mix
    	>of workers.  Minority members need to have equal access to training
    	>and education, so they are qualified for jobs.  Give them access
    	>to the prerequisites to employment, then they can take advantage
    	>of the employment opportunities.

    	Agreed!  A movement by huge numbers of the majority to make
    	education and training available to minority members (in addition
    	to employment opportunities) would do much to rapidly bring
    	our culture to the point where we would have a more balanced
    	mix of workers.
    

    re: .250
    
         Gee, it must be tuna syndrome(see note 13.122)...I thought I was
         paying attention. (this is a smiley face)
    
         Perhaps I should have been more specific by saying that I thought
         the examples were stretching a bit to find a case for genuine
         discrimination.  I mean, have you really found men beating
         down the doors to be secretaries?  Nursing has only been a
         recent area of interest and perhaps society's attitude thinks
         that men should only be doctors and women should only be nurses.
    

    re: .251
    
         I repeat, (re: men in childcare jobs) how many men are beating
         down the doors to be in low-paying, non-valued jobs.
        
    
    
    

    In answer to Steve's question (.250?):
    
    Yeah, Steve, I'd support a corrective bias toward adequately qualified
    fathers, including a quota system for judges/referees who can't seem to
    get it right.  Men have positively gotten the sharp end of that
    particular stick for the last 50 years or so. 
    
    And yes, the treatment of men who want to practice nursing is
    despicable and ought to be rectified by quota and by strict EEO
    monitoring if necessary to make EEO real in that space.
    
    						=maggie

    In addition  to nursing, men were discriminated against in the job
    of  telephone operator. It's an interesting case, as operators had
    lower  pay  but  higher  prestige than linemen (the guys who climb
    telephone  poles  for a living.) Only women could be operators and
    only  men  could  be linemen. When they finally got rid of the sex
    requirements  for the two jobs many more men became operators than
    women became linemen (line persons? ).

    As Bonie  points  out,  there  was a lot of discrimination against
    certain  white  groups. Since I'm Jewish, I'm most affected by the
    discrimination  against  Jews.  Until  1960 Yale (where I went for
    grad  school)  had  a  written (but not public) policy on limiting
    thenumber  of  Jews.  When that became unfashionable, they added a
    policy about "geographical balance" and brought in many more (less
    qualified)  students  from  areas  where there were few Jews. This
    practice  continues. It can't be handled with quotas because there
    are  typically  a higher fraction of qualified students among Jews
    and  Orientals than their fraction of the population (This is what
    you  would  expect  of  cultures that value education and learning
    highly.)  As  a  result,  these  two  groups  will probably suffer
    discrimination forever.

--David

    Re: .259
    
    >Perhaps I should have been more specific by saying that I thought
    >the examples were stretching a bit to find a case for genuine 
    >discrimination.
    
    The number of men affected is irrelevant.  If a man is denied a job
    because he's a man, he's experienced genuine discrimination.  The
    definition doesn't include a measure of magnitude.
    
    >I mean, have you really found men beating down the doors to be
    >secretaries?
    
    Depends on what you mean by 'beating down the doors.'  If you mean
    they have to break through the stereotypes of hiring managers, then
    there are probably some cases out there.  If you mean that droves
    of men aren't trying to be secretaries, so what?  Men have been
    conditioned to believe that they can't be secretaries; that's hardly
    their fault.  If there are men who break free of the gender stereotypes
    when they chose their career, why should they be held back in the
    workplace?
    
    >Nursing has only been a recent area of interest and perhaps society's
    >attitude thinks that men should only be doctors and women should
    >only be nurses.
    
    Right.  And the men who want to be nurses are just as hurt by this
    attitude as the women who want to be doctors.

    Re: .263
    
    >"The workplace" is not accountable to individuals who are so out
    >of touch with reality that they choose foolishly a career wherein
    >all they can expect is being ignored or held back.
    
    Oh, dear, I think you're in for it now.  Not so long ago, *any*
    woman trying for a career could expect to be ignored or held back.
    These days, the expectation is not so great, but the possibility
    is still there.  If there hadn't been women so 'out of touch with
    reality' that they tried to have a career, most of us wouldn't be
    here.  Fortunately, the pioneers have helped bring about change
    in the workplace.

    re: .252
    
>                                                            Male nurses
>   are paid less than females,
    
    Sorry Steve, wrongo.  Male registered nurses are paid 14% more than
    their female counterparts.  Here are the 1986 statistics (someday
    I'll get the 1987 statistics.)
    
    Regiestered Nurses
    
    Employed Males       66,000
    Avg. Weekly Salary     $492
    
    Employed Females    945,000
    Avg. Weekly Salary     $431
    
    ASP

    Gee!  Male secretaries are paid more, on the average, than female
    ones.  They advance more quickly, too.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .263
    
    Yes, I think all those women who have been secretaries and child
    care workers are damn fools for allowing themselves to get stuck
    in un-valued jobs...
    
    Still sounds like the men want to play the 'oh those women have
    gone and done us wrong' and then to really make the case, 
    blame the victims for the fact that men (not all men but always
    men) systematically kept women out of the high paying professions.
    Burning and hanging the witches was really about getting women out
    of ob/gyn.  Read Of Woman Born by Adrienne Rich, particularly the
    chapter entitled 'Hands of Flesh, Hands of Iron'.
    
    re: .265 and .266
    
    Thanks for the stats.  I am confident that not all men but always
    men will try to come along and rekindle the 'oh they done me wrong
    song'.
    
    So... 
    
    It seems discussions like this reinforce the old saying of...
    
    "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."  
    

    Re: .267
    
    Excuse me, but just what is your point?  Am I not allowed to be
    against discrimination for anyone?  In no way was I ever trying
    to suggest that discrimination against women was ok because men
    had been discriminated against too.  Instead I've been trying
    to see if we can suggest ways to end discrimination that doesn't
    just play tit-for-tat.
    
    				Steve

    There is one other issue that really has not been touched on here
    which is the role of Biology in the restrictions/discrimination
    that women have experienced.
    
    Often there is an under current that sounds like 'men did this
    just to control women, to control their sexuality, to control
    who the father of her children was, and they knew that women
    could do well on their own but controlled them and put them
    down and denied them opportunites out of sheer spite.'
    
    But we really haven't addressed the issue of how pregnancy
    and child bearing contributed to this situation. Without
    birthcontrol a sexually active woman will be pregnant about
    every two years. If she marries at 18 this means roughly
    15 pregnancies before menopause. The result of such frequent
    child bearing is often the death of the mother from a variety
    of causes, the least of which being simple exhaustion.
    
    I believe that the the toll that child bearing took/takes
    on women contributed to the image that women were weaker, that
    they needed special protection etc etc. When people knew no
    science they did not understand the reasons why women so often
    died in child birth, or why they became so depleted by frequent
    pregnancy and birth. It seems only logical for the custom of
    protecting women against unusual stress, which would include
    education, or particular jobs, as a way of preventing the
    all too frequent times when they died young leaving small children
    motherless.
    
    This has been particularly brought to my mind of late by
    the example of a neighbor of mine. She and her husband do
    not approve of birth control for religous reasons. She is only
    28 and is on her 6th pregnancy. She already has 6 children -
    the oldest being 9. She always looks completely rung out.
    She is thin and unhealthy looking.
    
    Imagine what it was like for women when this kind of situation
    was the norm not the exception, and perhaps we can understand
    why society evolved to protect women who were so important
    yet seemed so fragile.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .269
    
    	That makes sense, Bonnie, but how do you explain the origin
    	of the attitudes towards people of color (especially since
    	both black men and women often tended to appear stronger
    	and healthier than white men and women?)
    
    	Don't you think that the idea of "superiority" had a part
    	in the way blacks were treated (i.e., white is better than
    	black)?  
    
    	I've heard people say that the Plantation owners in the South
    	felt that they were "protecting" their slaves somehow by owning
    	them (in much the same way they "protected" women by more or
    	less "owning" us.)
    
    	What are the politics involved when a group has determined
    	that it is "superior" to another group (and must offer its
    	protection to that group)?

    This is just a quick answer Suzanne, but a lot of the problems
    with white attitudes in re Blacks, Orientals, Jewish people etc.
    came from cultural chauvanism. People were unable to see anything
    other than different from me = inferior to me.
    
    This is a whole another subject however, and I'm tired and want
    to go to bed.
    
    Talk to later on this
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .269
    
    I think Bonnie has a very useful observation.  That aspect had not
    occurred to me before.
    
    Re: .271
    
    My understanding is that the "protection" that the plantation owners
    claimed to offer their slaves was not based on physical nature but
    rather cultural.  Remember that many Southern slaves were kidnapped
    from Africa, and their culture would have been viewed as more primitive
    by the unenlightened in Europe and America.  The typical slave owner
    would claim, if you asked him, that he provided food and shelter
    and other "benefits" for the slaves better than they could provide
    for themselves.  Rationalization, yes, but that was the standard
    view at the time.  
    
    I don't think it worthwhile to place much stock in what slave owners
    claim was the reason they thought slavery was good, as it is
    self-serving.
    
    				Steve

    Re: .274
    
    Cultural difficulties were the basis, but the claims of the slave
    owners addressed the symptoms.  The argument was that blacks were
    like children -- at a 'lower' moral and intellectual level than
    the benevolent white man.  The poor things couldn't possibly survive
    without someone to take care of them.  Indeed, slave owners were
    doing society a SERVICE by taking care of these unfortunate souls.
    Why, if they let them go, .... you can fill in the rest, I'm sure.

    Re .269, this is a minor quibble, but historically, an absence
    of birth control probably went along, in most cases, with demand
    breast feeding and weaning at a much later age than today's norm.
    In such a situation, the average will probably be more like a 
    pregnancy every three years rather than every two years.  
    
    Bearing and raising ten children still sounds like quite an
    undertaking for one's life, though. 
    
    	-Neil

"I am confident that not all men but always men will try to come along and
rekindle the 'oh they done me wrong song'."

Oh?  Seems like an awfull lot of not-males in this conference sing that song...

'how many men want to be in child care?'

More then you think.  Men have been conditioned to not want, and to know that
that is something which they cannot have.  Hell, 99% don't even know what they
are missing, and as I'm sure you'd agree a person who doesn't know they even
have a choice is much less free then a person who wants an 'unpopular' choice.

JMB

    
    > more than you think
    
    The little monsters lose no time changing the guys' minds...

    	After not having seen "All in the Family" reruns in *ages*,
    	I saw one tonight and laughed like hell, because the very first
    	words I caught (tuning into the middle of the show) involved
    	Archie's bitching about how there were no special groups or
    	programs offering empathy/assistance to "white protestant males"
    	(and that it wasn't fair that rights groups care so much more
    	about what happens to minorities.)
    
    	Back in the 70's, the white male backlash was just a joke.
    	Now it is a grim reality (and is going to make the next several
    	decades harder on everyone as a result.)
    

    
    Archie was a Catholic, I think...
    
    

    	RE:  .282
    
    	No way!!!  His son-in-law ("Meathead") *used* to be, but Archie
    	was definitely a WASP.
    	
    

    
    I liked the episode where the black man he abused in the IRS
    office turned out to be his tax auditor....
    
    I hope His Holiness survived the drop...

    I think we've covered this point pretty thoroughly now :-).
    
    Could we get back on the main subject, or at least the tangent that
    biology has contributed to the position of women in the past?
    
    thanks
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .289
    
    	In my opinion, having many children in the 'hunter and gatherer'
    	days was no more life-shortening than hunting animals with 
    	primitive weapons (or getting into tribal wars with other males.)
    
    	No one lived very long in those days.
    
    	Your neighbor's health after 6 children may be more of a sign
    	that today's typical diets are not conducive to bearing lots
    	of children than a sign that women (centuries ago) looked worn
    	out enough to warrant being "protected" by men for the next
    	several thousands of years (including after we obtained birth
    	control and clearly didn't need that protection anymore.)

    Suzanne,
    
    Women *died* in childbirth quite often right up until the early
    twentieth century. Further, frequent childbearing did indeed
    phsyically exhaust women and make them more susceptable to diseases.
    Furthermore, about 50% of children died before they reached majority
    (most of them as infants).
    
    All I am suggesting is that where people did not understand *why*
    this happened, that cultures could well evolve in ways to protect
    women, who appeared to be more fragile, for reasons other than
    have been previously discussed.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .291
    
    >Women *died* in childbirth quite often right up until the early
    >twentieth century.
    
    No doubt they still do in third-world countries.

    Yes, of course they do Chelsea, my appologies for the lack of
    care in my wording.
    
    Bonnie

    re .271 by NEXUS::CONLON
    "especially since both black men and women often tended to appear
    stronger and healthier than white men and women?"
    
    Suzanne I'm sure that you realize that has been only a part of the myth
    about Black people. Do you really think that black men and women often
    tended or tend to appear stronger and healthier than white men and
    women? BTW, the origin of the attitude was based in the need to make
    beasts out of a race of people so that those people can be used as
    beasts of burden. 

    	RE:  .294
    
    	Speaking strictly in the context of a Plantation in the old
    	South, the slaves *did* tend to be healthier than their owners
    	(for the simple reason that slaves were deliberately *chosen*
    	for their strength and health, for economic reasons.)
    
    	When Bonnie said that men may have felt the need to "protect"
    	women because we tended to appear "frail" to them, I wondered
    	how Plantation owners could have justified "protecting" another
    	group of people who were decidedly NOT frail in comparison to 
    	their protectors.

    	The point I was trying to make is that there are any number
    	of rationalizations that a group can make for why another group
    	should be "protected" (and that those rationalizations often
    	contradict each other from one instance of oppression to another.)

       	By the way, in the early history of the U.S., there was a whole
    	set of politics surrounding the idea of appearing (what would
    	be considered by today's standards) as "healthy" and "strong."
    
    	Wealthy people in those days tended to look pasty (from being
    	indoors most of the time,) relatively meaty (from having enough
    	money and leisure time to eat a lot,) and generally what we would
    	consider 'out of shape' by today's standards (as opposed to
    	the kind of extra weight that could be considered healthy.)
    
    	Plantation workers and poor white farmers (both of whom spent
    	a lot of time working outdoors) tended to be tan, lean and
    	muscular (since they had less time and money to overeat, and
    	spent most of their time doing physical labor.)
    
    	Being pasty-white and somewhat overweight was considered highly
    	fashionable in those times (whereas being tan, lean and muscular
    	would be more associated with poverty, i.e. lack of social or
    	economic power.)
    
    	That is one of the reasons I have a hard time with the idea
    	that the patriarchy "protected" women because we seemed frail
    	to them.  Appearing frail would have put us at the height of
    	fashion for the times (along with men,) I would think.
    
    	It seems to me that the "protection" of women occured for much
    	the same reasons that Plantation owners "protected" their black
    	workers.  Different sometimes meant inferior in the eyes of the 
    	patriarchy (and the realities of being women, with our biology 
    	that tended to commit some of us to childbearing every couple of 
    	years, with the related health problems and the risk of death during
    	childbirth, was quite a striking difference at the time.)

    Re: .296
    
    >Appearing frail would have put us at the height of fashion for
    >the times (along with men,) I would think.
    
    I think it would be difficult for a "Junoesque" woman to look frail,
    and that was the fashion for quite some time.  But these things
    keep changing.
    
    Re: Bonnie
    
    No apology necessary ....

    re .295
    Okay. 
    
    (Another tangent.. :-) ) But were not slaves born into slavery? 
    They weren't all "chosen" so to speak. Anyway...

    	RE:  .299
    
    	> But were not slaves born into slavery?  They weren't all
    	> "chosen" so to speak. Anyway...
    
    	True.  I was under the impression, however, that there was a
    	fairly significant amount of movement going on among the workers
    	(it seemed to be a booming trade,) so I guess I assumed that
    	the most wealthy Plantation owners would have the resources
    	to acquire the best workers over time.  Perhaps not.
    

    The tangent on breastfeeding and ovulation has been moved to
    a separate note.
    
    Bonnie J
    comoderator

    Just read this in Network World, and thought I would enter it.
    
    I DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL PERSONNEL JOURNAL article, so can't
    comment on the source/validity of the stats....just offer this 
    as latest numbers I have seen on salary figures.
    
    
                                                    deb
    
    
    
            
        [ reprinted from 9/12/88 Network World---without permission ]
        
        
        From 1979 to 1986 the number of management and professional 
        employees in this country increased more than any other kind of 
        worker, according to figures compiled by the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics and reported by Personnel Journal.
        According to Department of Labor research, the magazine claimed, 
        total employment during the period increased 10.9%.  But the 
        number of executive, administrative and managerial workers 
        increased 28.7%, and the number of professional workers increased 
        21.4%.  The ranks of skilled blue-collar workers, meanwhile, rose 
        only 6.5%.  Employment of operators, fabricators and laborers 
        increased 9.2%.
        Apparently, white-collar workers are benefiting more from the 
        recent sustained economic growth than any other segment of the 
        population.  And this trend should continue.  Government 
        researchers quoted by the magazine project that from 1986 to 
        2000, total employment will increase 19.2%, with executive 
        managerial and administrative employment increasing 28.7% and the 
        number of professional workers increasing 27%.
        By contrast, the number of skilled blue-collar workers should 
        increase 12% and the number of operators, fabricators and 
        laborers is expected to rise only 2.6%.
        Meanwhile, weekly salaries for all workers, when adjusted for 
        inflation, have remained fairly stable.   The average weekly 
        earnings of U.S. workers in 1983 was $280.35.  In 1988 (1987) 
        this figure was $322.07.  When inflation is taken into account, 
        however, salaries have slumped slightly, from $171.36 in 1983 
        dollars to $168.37 this year.
        And the gap between median salaries for men and women persists.  
        In 1983, the median weekly salary for females was $252, or 66.7% 
        of what men made.  In 1987, women earned $303, or 70% of the 
        median male salary. 

This morning on All Things Considered there was a piece on
women's wages.

Currently women are making 65 cents for every dollar earned
by men. This is a fairly recent increase - although there
has been no change for three years. The ratio had stood
at 59 cents on the dollar for over twenty years.

Some of the people interviewed had an optimistic view of
the situation. They predicted that with the change in the
attitudes of male employers who are now hiring more women
for traditionally male jobs that the gap will close to 
74 to 80 cents by the end of the century. They gave examples
of women working as toll booth collectors and deck hands
on boats.

Others were not so optimistic. They felt that the closing
of the gap would be slower. They cited continued segregation
in the work force. For example over 95% of all firefighters
and engineers remain men, while over 95% of secretaries,
nurses and child care workers remain women. (The actual numbers
in all cases were higher than 95% but I wasn't able to take
notes while driving.) They also pointed to continuing barriers
against women being hired in more highly paid jobs.

Other problems for women are that when they begin to move into
formerly all male jobs the jobs become devalued in status and
salary, the example given being type setting which has become
a keyboard job rather than a skilled craft. Finally when they
move into such jobs they often move into the more low paying
low status versions of the jobs. The example given for the
later was bakers. Women are almost all supermarket bakers which
pays less than factory bakers.

    
    Bonnie

    Marge, 
    
    The ATC piece did go into that aspect of the devaluing but felt
    that there was more to it than just the change from one type
    of technology to another.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie/Marge
    
    Do you think that the reason that women's salaries on the overall
    scale are lower because women have lower paying jobs or that women
    fill the lower paying jobs in many industries which allows men to
    continually dominate the top of the corporate pay structure?
    
    I guess what I'm referring to is this. For many years there were
    secretaial pools where many women were paid at a very low rate and
    little or no advancement existed. Every once in awhile one or two
    would become personal sec. to an exec. The office manager usually
    was a man who held all of the cards and the pool was his fuel to
    exec-dome. Now we have many womwn in the fabs as operators/techs
    at the lowest pay scales in manufacturing. Very much female dominated.
    Same is still true for secretarial positions. So the end result
    is that for every well paid female engineer, there is a lower paid
    female operator that skews the profile. 
    
    I think that with so many women coming into the workplace taking
    the start-off jobs to get in the door that it skews the scale downward
    and will continue to do so until many of those women reach a mid-wage
    scale. Then the salaries will not be so off-setting.
    
    Just a note: 10% of the population of the U.S. controls 65% of the
    total wealth. 50% controls 15% and that leaves 40% paying the freight
    with 20% of the wealth. Sort of opens ones eyes does it not?

    The ATC piece that I was quoting from indicated that there
    are still jobs that are considered 'womens' jobs and that
    these have a much lower pay scale than jobs that are considered
    'mens' jobs - no matter the degree of skill, training etc that
    is required. In general women gravitate to these jobs because
    they are plentiful and there are no hassels to being hired.

    Bonnie

         I forget the name of the woman from San Jose who's court case
    for job discrimination went to the Supreme court and won, but she
    had quite a tale to tell.  She was a book keeper for the public
    works department.  The job of dispatcher (traditionally a male job
    and one requiring a one work inthe field for some length of time
    (2 or 3 years?)) paid $1.50 more an hour than her job despite the
    fact that it required less education and less skill.
    
         She had to go to court to get the supervisor of the work crews
    to accept her application. (He refused to take applications from
    women)
    
         She had to fight to get hired despite having higher qualifications
    for road crew work than the men who were being hired.  (She may
    have gone to court on this one too)
    
         She had to put up with all kinds of B.S. while on the road
    crew including death threats, having her tires slashed, being given
    the worst job assignments, and nearly being run over by a fellow
    worker (definately on purpose).
    
         She had to go to court again when the dispatcher job became
    available again to get her application accepted.
    
         And she had to take the district to court to get the job because
    the man they hired was less qualified than she was.  This is the
    case that went to the supreme court.
    
         A woman has to fight, and risk loss of life and property to
    get into some of the traditional male jobs that pay more, and require
    less (in qualification).
    
    ASP

    Ken, 
    
    Here's a small example of women and "entry level".
    
    I don't personally know very many people at Digital. However, of
    the people I know, 2 are women who joined DEC already possessing
    degrees. One of them had an *advanced* degree and had been working
    previous to coming to DEC.
    
    Both of these educated women started off as secretaries. (No, their
    degrees were not from secretarial schools)
    
    Of the people I know at DEC, *NOT ONE* man started out as a secretary.
    
    
    And is it beside the point to wonder how it is that secreatrial
    positions are looked on a some "entry level" place [for women only,
    of course]?!? Secretarial work is a particular *kind* of work. I mean,
    why not start people [women-people, you know] as, say, tech writers,
    or hey! vice presidents! Perfect way to get a good overview of the
    company!
    
    --DE
    

    re .313: Hi, Dawn!
    Now you know why my mother (a mathematician who ended up working
    as a secretary) told me to never admit in a job interview for an
    entry-level job that I could type, even though I took a summer-school
    typing course (really improved my keypuching speed! - this was in
    the "old days" when programmers used punched cards).  She didn't
    want her technically-trained daughter to end up in clerical job
    just because I could type, when what I wanted to become was an
    engineer.
    
    I'd like to think the world has made some progress since 1971...

    re: .313
    
    	Advanced degrees are great if they are applicable to hte buisness
    of the company. If your friends have advanced degrees in something
    that they can use inside this company then they are should look
    to move on to those type of jobs. 
    
    	If however they have advanced degrees in something that is not
    applicable - like geology for instance - then there advanced degree
    doesn't and I believe shouldn't make them qualified for "better"
    jobs.
    
    	What are there degrees in?
    
    
    	mike

    
    	I don't want to nit pick, but Digital does have a presence in
    	the area of geology -- oil and mineral companies, resource 
    	planning, and government contracts, to mention a few.
    
    	It would seem that, depending on a person's experience, computers
    	are utilized in about any field these days.
    
    	Sharon 
    

    in re .316
    
    There are other advantages to having an advanced degree than
    simple mastery of subject matter. A person with such a degree
    has learned skills such as problem solving, organization of
    material, etc plus they have demonstrated the ability to 
    learn and master complex information. All of these apply in
    the work situation. (and I am sure that people can come up
    with other examples)
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .318
    
    Exactly, Bonnie.
    
    I know a man who was a software engineer and had *no* bachelor's
    degree.  He did *not* start as a secretary.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .319
    
    Dawn, I'm still trying to figure out what your anecdotes prove.
    Surely you don't believe that the presence or absence of a degree
    is the only factor in determining suitability for a job?  (If it
    were, I'd be in big trouble...)
    
    I'm not saying that what you claim doesn't happen.  But simply
    saying "I don't know any men who got started as secretaries"
    doesn't itself prove anything.
    
    I DO know several women who were given lesser jobs than they were
    qualified for - all had degrees - though none were made secretaries.
    Their being female was very likely a contributing factor.  But these
    cases were some ten years ago.  I know in my group, at least, we NEVER
    start out new hires, men or women, in clerical roles if they are
    going for an engineering job.  If they are competent, they are hired
    as engineers.  And we have a LOT of women engineers (and supervisors
    and managers) in our organization.
    
    				Steve

    My WAG concerning women's lower salary levels is that perceptions
    are different.
    
    The hiring manager, Putnam, looks at a male candidate, sees what
    he can do, and extrapolates beyond that to what he can probably
    do, because that's what other men have done with those capabilities.
    
    The hiring manager, Putnam, looks at a female candidate, and sees
    only what she has explicitly told him she can do.
    
    							Ann B.

    Mike et alius,
    
    What the anecdote was demonstrating (not proving) was that even
    the salary-to-job-skills comparison does not show all the sexual
    discrimination around.
    
    The claim had been going around that women are paid less only
    because they are in jobs which intrinsically pay less.  Instead
    of arguing that very arguable point, Dawn used another tack.
    She pointed out that women are being hired into positions *F*A*R*
    lower than those for which they are qualified, and then are paid
    at the low level commensurate with the job they were given.  Thus,
    her point was that women were being "hired down" and *then* "paid
    down" -- to coin an unfortunate pair of phrases.
    
    						Ann B.

    RE: .323
    
    Thanks, Ann. That's the point. I wasn't *proving* anything (what
    *is* it with this notesfile and *proving*, anyway?!?!?!?). I gave
    an example from my admittedly small group of "folks I know" at DEC.
    I was replying to a note which talked about women having to start
    as secretaries because they hadn't been in the work force, or who
    were less well educated than men.  I merely pointed out that here
    were 2 women who HAD been in the work force and were NOT less educated,
    yet started as secretaries - a guarantee of starting out behind
    the 8 ball. In my small sample, there was one man who WAS less
    well educated, and started in an engineering position.
    
    Maybe that doesn't indicate anything to you. To me, it says a lot
    about how secretarial positions are viewed, and how women are viewed.
                                                      
    --DE
    
    

    re: .324
    
>            I was replying to a note which talked about women having to start
>    as secretaries because they hadn't been in the work force, or who
>    were less well educated than men.  I merely pointed out that here
>    were 2 women who HAD been in the work force and were NOT less educated,
>    yet started as secretaries - a guarantee of starting out behind
>    the 8 ball. In my small sample, there was one man who WAS less
>    well educated, and started in an engineering position.
    
    
    I'll agree I believe starting as a secretary puts a stigma on the
    person and they may never reach their potential because of what
    other people feel secretaries are capable of, not looking to see
    what the person is capable of.
    
    Yet your last line in vague and potentiall misleading.
    
    A phd in philosophy vs a bs in computer science, 
    I'll take the less well educated bs for a software job.
    
    I also don't beleive education is the only gating factor 
    education + experience.
    
    I'd take an experienced enginner with lowwer grades than
    an unproved engineer with higher grades.
    
    	- that is my opinion other probably don't agree
    
    mike

>>>    < Note 88.325 by CADSE::SHANNON "look behind you" >
>>>    I'll agree I believe starting as a secretary puts a stigma on the
>>>    person and they may never reach their potential because of what
>>>    other people feel secretaries are capable of, not looking to see
>>>    what the person is capable of.

    	In some case...maybe...
    	Of course, we have three people in our group who were secretaries
        and moved up into non-clerical (though not engineering) positions.
    	It really depends on the people...
    
>>>        I also don't beleive education is the only gating factor 
>>>    education + experience.

    	True...as I said (somewhere) we had a principal who never	
    	finished high school.  I know at least one senior software
    	engineer (a woman, but that's not relevant here) who started
    	programming seven years ago (no college education until a recent
    	Associate's Degree).
    	I went through four years of school plus four years of work to get 
    	there...and I was paying out for four years of it.  
    	I wonder who did the smarter thing.

>>>        I'd take an experienced enginner with lowwer grades than
>>>    an unproved engineer with higher grades.

    	considering that my grades were lower than yours, I sure will
    	agree with you!    

    hmmmmmmm...................................
    
    i'm not sure how to enter this discussion.
    
    on one hand, i'm a man who entered through a secretarial position
    (actually a temp, then moved in full time as a tech), but on the
    other hand, outside of myself i agree with .313+......i've seen
    women with advanced degrees turned back where i got in.
    
    maybe i'll just branch out and away from DEC down to the PR business
    in new york city, where my brother (with a masters in communications
    from BU) won't touch a secretarial position as an entry level position
    because that is how women get in, men with degrees in communications
    being rarer so he believes he can get more than that................
    
    don't look at me like that.....i'm a read-only noter........jonathan
    
    

One of the ex-womannotes moderators started as a secretary, then moved
to a technical position.  She discussed this in an earlier incarnation
of the file.  Perhaps someone could dig her notes out of the archives.

Martin.

    RE: .328
    
    Well, the attached extract from V1 is not about one of the ex-
    Womannotes moderators.
    
    However, it is an introduction that was written by my current manager
    in US/DIS Fiscal and Cash Operations.  
    
    Since the time she wrote her original Into, Suzanne has moved from the
    GIA function to the U.S. Area, and has taken on even more responsi-
    bilities.
    
      Alan
    
    ***********************************************************************
    
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V1.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< Original Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 2.116           Introductions: what do women do at DEC?          116 of 253
AKOV02::GRENACHE                                     45 lines   4-FEB-1987 16:07
                       -< GLAD TO KNOW YOU'RE HERE..... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       HI, MY NAME IS SUZANNE GRENACHE AND I AM CURRENTLY A 
  SYSTEMS & PROGRAMMING MANAGER IN GIA.  MYSELF AND MY GROUP
  SUPPORT THE FISCAL CONTROLLER'S ORGANIZATION AND ARE CLOSELY
  LINKED, FROM A FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING APPLICATION PERSPECTIVE,
  WITH ALL THE OF THE G.I.A. SALES AND SERVICE SUBSIDIARIES,
  WORLD-WIDE.

       I'VE BEEN IN THIS JOB FOR 2 1/2 YEARS, BEEN IN D.I.S. FOR
  8 YEARS, ALL WITHIN F & A ORGANIZATIONS, BEEN WITH DEC 12+ YEARS
  AND STARTED OUT AS AN EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.  I'M ONE OF THOSE
  TRULY LUCKY PEOPLE WHO WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE
  WITHIN THE COMPANY.  GRANTED, I MUST HAVE DEMONSTRATED SOME OF
  THE "RIGHT STUFF", ( HOPEFULLY, STILL DO... ) BUT I'VE DONE VERY
  WELL AT DIGITAL AND HAVE NO IMMEDIATE INTENTIONS TO LEAVE.  EVERY
  JOB HAS BEEN A LEARNING EXPERIENCE.  I GUESS IF THAT EVER CHANGES,
  I'LL CONSIDER MOVING ON.

       I'VE JUST TURNED 39, DIVORCED, NO NATURAL CHILDREN ( SEE NOTE
  #187 ) BUT DO HAVE A COMFORTABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH MY STEPSON FROM
  MY ONLY MARRIAGE.  I'VE JUST BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH "NOTES" AND
  AM ONLY BEGINNING TO MAKE THE TIME TO ACCESS AND READ.  I DO HOPE
  TO BE A PARTICIPANT, WHEN AND WHERE APPLICABLE, INTERESTED, ETC..

       I FEEL I CAN RELATE, CONTRIBUTE AND SHARE AND WILL TRY TO DO
  SO AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

       I WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP SOME RELATIONSHIPS FROM THIS AND OTHER
  FILES.  FOR ME, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MANY ACQUANTANCES OR
  FRIENDS.  IN FACT, I AM EAGER TO "BEEF UP" MY POOL OF AVAILABLE FEMALE
  AND MALE RESOURCES TO DO ALL KINDS OF FUN AND INTERESTING THINGS.

       LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING CONTACT IN THE FUTURE.

       NICE TO KNOW YOU'RE HERE.

                                              SUZANNE
                                              SUZIE
                                              SUZ
                       BUT, PLEASE.........NOT SUSAN

   NO OFFENSE, SUSANS OF THIS WORLD, BUT THAT ISN'T MY NAME.

   BYE FOR NOW.

    .330
    
    I don't think it sinks the 'secretary stigma' at all.  Suzanne is
    very modest...she worked extremly hard to get where she is today.
    She has done well, extremely well.  I am not sure what she is doing
    today....but I suspect if she were a man she would have advanced
    even further.
    
    I would give my eye teeth to work for Suzanne because I have seen
    how she has worked the issues of sexism and discrimination.  She
    is not a whiner she does what has to be done.  But she is exceptional.
    
    This note is talking about the average woman who comes into the
    company compared to the average man.  
    
    The statistics are available the average woman with the same education
    as the average man is most always offered less money and a lesser
    position even here at DEC.
    
      

    I agree with Joyce. I know that when I was hired at Dec I was offered
    less money that a man who had far less education than me for the
    same position. Though to my bosses's credit when I brought up the
    disparity and asked him why, he corrected it. The only difference
    between us when everything else was  balanced out was sex and my boss 
    agreed that we should have been paid the same when I questioned it.
    How many other women happen to be friends with a man who was hired
    for the same position at the same time so that they can find out
    that they were being offered less?
    
    When I first worked as a temp at Dec I was offered secretaries
    jobs twice. I asked one of the two managers who had given me the
    offer if he thought I would 1. be happy as a secretary over a long
    time and 2. find it easy to move up and out of secretary work. The
    fact that he  gave me an honest 'no' upon thought to both of those
    questions figured strongly in my decision to return to teaching
    rather than start at Dec several years earlier.
    
    Bonnie

    <--(.328)
    
    The only "ex-womannotes moderator" who started as a secretary was
    Holly...who has a masters and *three* bachelors degrees plus a killer
    IQ.  Scarcely your average person in any way. 
    
    						=maggie
             

re: .333:

I was thinking of Karen Taber.  See Womannotes-V1, note 1.1.

Martin.

    Right you are, Martin.  I'd forgotten that Bugsy (2.49, -V1) had also
    started as a secretary.  Do you consider her to be average, then?

    RE: last few
    
    That X number of women worked their buns off to get "up" and out
    of secretarial positions is a separate issue. I'd still like to
    know how many men had to do that. Especially how many men with
    3 bachelor's degrees, a master's degree, and a "killer IQ".
    
    Women, as a group, are still started in "lower" positions, and
    more often, than men as a group. And, while some women may get
    these positions because of less education or work experoence,
    many do not. They get them because they are women. Period.
    
    --DE
    

A good friend of mine held "secraterial" positions (I'm not sure of
    the levels) for several years, both in DEC & out.  In her latest
    postion at DEC, she spent more then 80% of her time doing system
    analysis / and system management work. (Being a past member of an MIS
    organization, and involved in hireing and fireing, I feel I am
    qualified to state that her resonsibilities truely were at a SA's
    level.)  She deceided to change her job, and applied for SA positions.
    Without exception, every manager told here she was not qualified.
    4 months later she tried again.  This time every manager asked her
    to come in for interviews. EVERY ONE. Some were the same managers
    who had turned her down previously.  The difference?  Nothing had
    changed in her duties at DEC.  However, this time her resume left
    off the titles of her previous jobs, just left the descriptions.
    
    This is only one example, but it is pretty graphic.  The simple
    word, SECRATERY, limited her ability to advance,  even in a very
    progressive company like DEC.

    Oh yeah, i forgot.  She also had a BA in Business with a double
    minor in computors and accounting.  But was told the only way she
    could get into DEC was as a secratery,,, seems DEC didn't need any
    of her skills but her ability to answer phones and set-up conferences.

For what it's worth, the new book on Ken Olsen ("The Ultimate Entrepeneur")
has some fairly nasty things to say about Dec and women in the 1970's.

M.

The Ultimate Entrepreneur
The Story of Ken Olsen and Digital Equipment Corporation

by: Glenn Rifkin and George Harrar.
Contemporary Books.  ISBN 0-8092-4559-0
$19.95.

    In regards to Holly, the moderator who worked her way up.  Holly
    didn't really start as a secretary in the usual sense.  She had
    been a teacher for years, and when she wanted to get into DEC at
    the height of a long hiring freeze, she made an agreement with a
    manager to do secretarial work for a year in exchange for support
    in moving on to a more appropriate job after that.
    
    Dondi 

    
    I think all this really shows is that DEC's hiring practices have
    been pretty inconsistent.  I feel like I need to enter this because
    in at least *some* cases (mine) DEC has been very good about putting
    women in good entry level positions with good growth opportunity.
    
    I came to DEC in July of 1979.  I had no degree, two years of college
    level biology, no industry experience to speak of.  I had programmed
    as a hobby off and on since 1973.
    
    The manager I interviewed with decided that I had potential, and
    hired me as as an associate programmer analyst.  Within 6 months
    he promoted me to Programmer/Analyst.  He signed for me to take
    an assembly language class (I was doing financial apps in (ugh)
    COBOL) and in 1980 I went to work for Software Services as a Software
    Specialist fixing bugs in TOPS-20 - by grace of yet another manager
    (also male) who took a chance on me.  
    
    Since then my title has progressed from SW Spec. -> Sr. SW Spec.
    -> Marketing Tech. Spec. -> SW Eng -> Sr. SW Eng.  I'm currently
    a Sr. SW Engineer and program manager of a really great project,
    and I still don't have a degree.  I do intend to get one some one
    of these days, but because I want more training, not because I feel
    at all held back in my career.
    
    So, Dawn, in closing, I want to let you know that I do believe that
    the things you described happen, and I do think sexism has a great
    deal to do with it, but I wanted to let you know that it doesn't
    always happen, and it doesn't happen in all parts of the company.
    Sometimes undegreed women get the same breaks as rthe undegreed
    man you mentioned.
    
    Rita
    

From Business Week, 19 Dec 88.
    
Big bucks or peanuts:  The growing wage gap between women
 
Most economists agree that the distribution of earnings in the U.S.
has grown more unequal in the past decade.  What has largely escaped
recognition, however, claim economists Barnet Wagman and Nancy Folbre
of the University of Massachusetts, is the "feminization of
inequality."  Partly as a result of progress made by a small group of
highly educated women, they note, "the distribution of women's
earnings--traditionally more egalitarian than that of men--is becoming
more unequal."...
 
----- break for illustration (graph rewritten as table)
 
	Income inequality among women is on the rise
 
	% of full-time year-round female workers
 
	1978  below $10K	17%
	      above $30K	 7%
 
	1986  below $10K	19%
	      above $30K	10%
 
	* constant 1985 dollars, data from Census Bureau
 
-----
 
    The percentage of female full-time workers earning less than $10,000
    (in constant 1985 dollars), for example, rose from 16.5% to 19.1%
    between 1978 and 1986, and the ranks of low-wage earners look a lot
    more crowded if one adds the 28% of women workers who are part-timers
    and average less than a third of full-time pay.  Still, the number of
    well-paid women also jumped significantly, with those earning more than
    $30,000 (in 1985 dollars) rising from 6.8% of full-timers to 10.3%
    (chart). 
 
    In the same period, men did worse.  The percentage of full-time,
    year-round male workers earning more than $30,000 declined from 40% to
    37%, and the proportion of those making under $10,000 rose--though it
    stayed below 10%. 
 
    Wagman and Folbre concede that women performed better partly because
    they were less vulnerable to the manufacturing sector's woes, which
    depressed men's wages.  But they also stress that women have made great
    strides over the past decade in getting high-paying professional and
    managerial jobs. 
 
    While such positions accounted for only 27% of women's full-time jobs
    in 1975, they were up to 32% by 1986.  At the same time, the comparable
    male share fell from 34.6% to 29.4%.  In 1975 the ratio of women to men
    managers in industry and government was just 22 to 100, but by 1986 it
    had reached 54 to 100. 
 
    Wagman and Folbre estimate that the occupational shift toward
    managerial and professional jobs by itself accounted for about 2.1
    percentage points of the 10.5% rise in women's real wages since 1975.
    By contrast, men's declining share of such jobs retarded their real
    wage gains in the same period.  Meanwhile, average
    professional-managerial wages for women rose about 11% in real terms
    from 1975 to 1986--almost twice as fast as other women's wages and
    about 30% faster than men's professional-managerial earnings (which
    still average about 69% higher). 
 
    This progress, say the two economists, was all the more remarkable
    because it occurred at a time when competitive pressures unleashed by
    demographic shifts and industrial change were putting "tremendous
    downward pressure on wages in general."  Thus, they believe that
    affirmative action programs played a major role in boosting "both the
    number and the earnings of women in professional-managerial jobs." 
 

[Reprinted from the Boston Globe 7/26/89 without permission]
 
"Wives are still earning less than husbands

WASHINGTON - Wives' incomes have increased nearly twice as fast as their 
husbands' in recent years, but the man is still the major breadwinner for 
most families, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.

Between 1981 and 1987 the average earnings of wives jumped 23.3 percent, 
while husbands' income climbed 11.8 percent in the same period, according 
to the study "Earnings of Married-Couple Families: 1987."

That brought the average income of wives to $13,245 in 1987, compared with 
$29,154 for husbands.

"More of them (wives) are working year-round, full time, instead of part 
time," explained Census statistician Robert W. Cleveland.  In past years, 
he said, women were more likely to accept part-time jobs, resulting in 
lower average income.

"Also, more women are in professional and technical jobs which tend to have 
better pay," Cleveland added.

One factor in this change, he said, is the tendency of women to have pursued 
more education in recent years.

In addition, said Cleveland:  "I think there is more equal treatment, 
things are not as discriminatory for women.  The opportunities are more 
available for them now than in the past."

Still, wives continue to lag behind their husbands in income.

Wives working full time at least 50 weeks per year averaged $18,929 in 
1987, only 57 percent of the $33,305 earned by husbands who worked full 
time 50 weeks or more.

Recent government statistics for all men and women, married and unmarried, 
showed women averaging 65 percent of men's income, somewhat more than the 
57 percent for full-time working wives.

Wives are more likely to have to take time off to tend children, or to have 
delayed careers during child rearing, than women in general."