women in forestry, affirmative action, fairness

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Mon Aug 24 04:11:45 EST 1998


Karl Kulp wrote:
> 

> In a certain respect, its ok with me 'cause women have been so discriminated
> against in the work place. My opinion, even if no one asked for it :-)

They were discriminated against - sort of- because it was expected that
they should "stay barefoot and pregnant"- while their men spent 16 hours
a day in some industrial hell hole or out breaking his back in the
fields. Few went to college like today. But those that do go to college
have no case that they will be discriminated against when they graduate-
hence it's debatable that they need affirmative action. Maybe the 10% I
speculated on was low. Maybe it's 30%. So they should get half the jobs?
Without AA, they'll still get jobs. So what need for AA for women?
Whatever discrimination may have occurred is not comparable with 400
years of slavery. The discrimination that did occur was more comparable
to the discrimination that occurred against various white ethnic groups-
Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. But each of those overcame discrimination
by proving themselves- and women will too, because they are just as
capable as men- but they will be able to do this WITHOUT AA.

And when you graduate and go to look for the start of your career- if
anyone- a women, an Afro American, whatever gets that job solely because
of AA, you are NOT going to be happy about it. I still support AA for
Afro Americans is limited situations such as large industrial concerns
in large cities or in so called civil service jobs which normally are
handed out to cronies of politicians, especially in Mass.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list