Woman in forestry response
mhagen at olympus.net
Fri Aug 21 15:27:11 EST 1998
Hope you've got your flame suit on for this one. You've gored one of the
most sacred cows in the civil service (is sacred cow sexist?) Maybe I
should say, sacred cattle, because AA is one of those brands that'll get
you hamburgered if you stick out from the herd.
This is one of those unproveable issues. If your hire benefited from
AA, the system's great. Of course you're the most qualified - You got
the job! If your the one who almost made it, and you've gotten lots of
attaboys from the boss, the system's screwed. And eventually you get off
the bus. As have a few others on the list, I've personally lost out on
promotions and new hires because I wasn't an "Affirmative Action
candidate". It's explained as simply as that. Sorry Bub, that permanent
position is an AA. Catch ya next spring.
The only reality check I can think of: how many shelter incidents have
ocurred because AA personel were put in supervisory positions without
the fireline time to recognize danger to their crews?
And Sagola has a point. The Old Guard is still in place, paralyzed, but
breathing. And no one can get rid of them without changing the whole
ballgame and surplusing the useless positions. Sound familiar?
Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> Sagola Hardwoods wrote:
> > I found your letter regarding "Woman in Forestry" quite ridiculous!!! My
> > only response to your most definitely, male chauvanist letter is to reply
> > that I think you should move to a third world country where they treat
> > woman no better than an animal. The United States is not a male dominated
> > society which promotes sex discrimination.
> > It makes no difference whether a person is male or female when it comes to
> > choosing a career, but I agree with you in one way, being qualified does.
> > Many unqualified men are in careers they should not be in and are making
> > excellent incomes. And, just as many qualified woman have been under paid
> > for jobs, as far as history goes back.
> > Personally, what we don't need is more men like you in forestry!!
> Well, I can see you cowardly didn't reply in the newsgroups and your
> lame brain didn't comprehend my message, so I'll bring this here. I was
> pointing out that women are POSSIBLY over represented in burro-ocracies
> due to affirmative action, when they are a small minority of forestry
> Rather than act like it's that time of the month with a bitchy letter to
> me, you should have read that letter more carefully and responded in a
> professional manner, for which I was ready for a professional dialogue.
> You are obviously incapable of that.
> Now if you try again, we might be able to discuss this issue, and next
> time don't be such a wimpy coward, do it in public and give your name.
> And I am not a male chauvinist. That's is the obviously most stupid
> thing I've heard in years. Every time anyone says anything about women-
> that possibly, just possibly there might be SOME problems with
> affirmative action, many of you go nuts- and start whimpering.
> Joe Zorzin
More information about the Ag-forst