home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3555 soc.men:23428 soc.women:23175 misc.legal:23485 alt.feminism:7721
- Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
- From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
- Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
- Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
- Message-ID: <C1J9G5.8Js@cs.psu.edu>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 22:07:16 GMT
- References: <1993Jan26.185700.29755@midway.uchicago.edu> <C1IpA6.H47@cs.psu.edu> <1993Jan27.195411.28410@netcom.com>
- Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Lines: 26
- Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
-
- payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
- ><C1IpA6.H47@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
-
- >>That's like saying that women had no desire to be company president
- >>in the 1950's because they didn't apply. Perhaps there were a few
- >>exceptions: those cases where an exceptionally talented woman pushed
- >>her way through. Only the truly exceptional women would even pursue
- >>it; the others wouldn't waste the time, effort, and money, because
- >>the sexism was a pure and clear obstacle.
- >>
- >>If 70% of women who applied for company president were accepted
- >>under such circumstances, I, for one, would not conclude that women
- >>were treated equally or better than men.
- >
- >Why is it that if "70% of women who applied for company president were
- >accepted" you would not expect sexist hiring pactices?
- >
- >[,,,___,,,]
-
- I don't understand your question -- where did I say anything like that?
-
- Maybe it's the [,,,___,,,] symbol? What does it mean?
-
- Don
- --
- beaver@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged
-