Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00215)

The Triaist:
>For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it
>because I am a man.  If I want to be a bank teller.  Well, I can pretty much
>forget about that too.<snip>

><snip>And I don't need to have lived for ages to realize that women of powerful
>influence have been "hidden behind the political scenes" in the past.

TTT:
I see a theme going here.  First, we are powerful because we get to be
secretaries and tellers, then we are powerful because we get to be
behind the scenes.  Wow!  I can feel that power now!  I agree that
discrimination either way is unfair.  However, there is discrimination
in the fact that women will get unhesitatingly hired as secretaries,
nannies, and bank tellers, yet few women will get hired as executives
and loan officers.  Why would I want to be a First Lady when I can be a
President?  My point is not to demean these jobs, but to point out that
there are places, and high level places at that, that women do not have
easy access to.  In fact, I had a friend who is a bank executive (yes, I
can have chauvinistic friends).  He was in the process of hiring a loan
officer.  He confided to me that he preferred to hire a man because
women are no fun, that they are nitpicky and have no sense of humor (and
no joke about that's because he knows me).  He doesn't want anyone to
crunch his balls for jokes about women.  He can't hang out with a woman
as he would with a man.  In complaining about a male superior, he would
make general statements about his conduct.  In complaining about a
female superior, he would say that she is a bitch, that she must have
PMS.

The Triaist:
>I am not saying that men are not guilty of sexism and domination over females.
>I am saying that women are not innocent of the same.
<snip>
>In order to solve it, we need to address both issues, and stop accusing one another.

TTT:
True, true.  We address it as it comes, right?  If Tom had start out
with a statement, "Why can't men have equal opportunity in secretarial
jobs?"  I would say, "Yeah, they should!"  Unfortunately, for him and
the general nervousness of some men on this list, he did not.  I was
mainly pointing out the flaws in his argument.  Maybe I should have
toned down my calling him a sexist.  However, I also believe in being
honest by calling someone something he shows himself to be.  Too many
wrongs have been covered up in pretty words.  For all the complaints
about the younger generation, I really like the fact that honesty and
frankness is "in."  In the past (and probably present), people have been
nice and polite as they refuse housing and job opportunities to
minorities and women.  If someone were to think me inferior because of
my race or sex, I would rather they say it to my face than behind my
back.  That way, it is out in the open for debate.  That is where I am
thankful to Tom.  I may argue against his opinions, but I give him
accolades for being brave enough to let us know what he thinks.

The arguments that we are being too nasty to Tom reminds me of the
picketers for freeing Harry Woo, an activist being jailed in China for
infiltrating the Chinese prison system, because he documented that
political prisoners' rights were being violated.  The picketers were
shouting and jumping onto the stage with chants, "Free Harry Woo!"
during the celebration of trade between China and San Francisco.  The
host of the show told the picketers that they were being too loud,
obnoxious, and unfair to those poor people who spent long hours
preparing for the show. Similar complaints were made against
African-Americans marching for their rights, anti-war protesters, and
the feminist movement.  I guess protesting is not a NICE job.

The Triaist:
>TTT:
>>Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo.  I feel so sorry for you men.  Try growing some
>>ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the
>>protector, and the power.

>I don't need ovaries.  I don't want them.  Especially if you feel that they
>are the sole cause of manipulation and dominance.

TTT:
I certainly do not feel that!  I was being tongue in cheek regarding
your statement.

M.K. Ramadoss:
>A couple of Japanese origin drove across the country and lo and behold at
>90% of the those who responded to paper questionairre that they will not
>accommodate  them, did indeed rent rooms when the couple showed up. What
>this experiment showed was that repondents tend to respond in one way to
>paper question and totally differently react on a person to person basis.

>It is quite likely that even those that some of us may hate, will react
>totally differently if it is a person to person contact.

TTT:
True.  I don't hate anyone, not even Tom.  If Tom were to show up at my
place, I would give him a room too.  If he were to say the same things
as he did on this list, we would have a long debate, I would feed him,
then send him to his room.

Dave Kirk and quotations:
>To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are certain that it is false
is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty. All
silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallability.
Though the silenced opinion may be in error, it may, and very commonly
does,
contain a portion of truth; and since the prevailing opinion on any
subject
is rarely or never the whole truth it is only by the collision of
adverse
opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being
supplied.

Even if the received opinion be the whole truth, unless it is contested
it
will be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension of
its
rational grounds.

If there are any persons who contest a received opinion let us thank
them
for it. In an imperfect state of the human mind the interests of truth
require a diversity of opinion.

-Unknown<

And:

>To every shade of thought, religious, scientific, political, economic, and
social; to every craze, fad, dogma, heresy, and inspiration; there
should be
accorded a forum, a soap box, a ton of type, and, subject to a
subsequent
responsibility for utterances, full liberty of speech and print.
        -Unknown<

TTT:
Yes, yes, yes and yes.  I prefer Tom expressing what he thinks rather
than holding it in while still believing it.  He has a right to express
his views with honesty.  The respondents to his views have a right to
argue against or for his views in as honest a way as they like.  And
some of the people on this list have the right to express that they're
sick of this debate.

TTT S=o)