Re: what was that?


Subject: Re: what was that?
From: sylvi macCormac (macCormac@shaw.ca)
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 21:18:35 EDT


Linda.et al

Seltzer wrote : < Did all three women suddenly have strokes in the area
of the brain that controls their social functioning? ... Rhetoric of the
right (note all of the Democrats pitching their promises to "working
families," the opposite, of course, being all of those single women on
welfare, the scapegoats).< end quote

Thank you for further articulation. Seriously, sounds like you could
write a book ? Beyond th Technological is th Sociological ie
Rationalizing Culture : IRCAM. i thought RC: IRCAM was going to be
Technical book in Cultural Studies (ie how th technicians worked with th
composers and what they created) which turned out to be an
ethnomusicolgolical study by a Journalist who wanted to know th 'dirt'.
How much discrimination, how much who knows who, how much unsaid, how
much voguing for th camera or computer ... ? ... Plz continue ...

i'll stick to figuring out how th Audio Box works it's random magic :-)
while i while away th flowers in Lotus Land (aka CANADA) voting for and
working with people, i believe, who don't 'cook th books' while their
relations do 'coke' ... ah, with all th choices ? ... why do developers
hang with politicians who hang with celebs ? ;--)

best o luck, sylvi macCormac
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.sylvi.ca / na / da / bc
siwash rock in th great white north
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fwrdbcc: CSiS - Canadian Sound intelligence Society
out back with Grover trying to figure out how ProTools works :-)
bkwrdcc: FBi - Freedom Being imperative

Linda Seltzer wrote:

> In 2002, at a certain corporate research lab, all three female
> department heads had their management responsibilities taken away.
> It all happened in one day in one announcement. Did all three
> women suddenly have strokes in the area of the brain that controls
> their social functioning? Or was it about something else, such
> as the realization that after 2001, Clinton wouldn't be President any
> more, anti-discrimination enforcement would be greatly diminished,
> and the backlash against affirmative action would begin. Was it
> really an extension of the prejudice that the women were really
> promoted only because of affirmative action, with an intent to
> right this "injustice"?
>
> I used to think that discrimination was just a subjective phenomenon
> that occurred because the male managers wanted to be surrounded with
> like-minded people. I thought the promotion of the most right wing
> males into management positions in corporations was just a matter
> of similarity. Then I read in Paul Krugman's column in the NY Times
> a few years ago how the Repoublicans were systematically trying to
> control corporate promotions and put their own people in the higher
> jobs. I had previously realized that this was (loosely, I think)
> organized, or intentional.
>
> Sen. Rick Santorum, one of the spokesmen for the religious right
> in the Senate, has written a book entitled "It Takes a Family"
> (a clear attack on Hillary Clinton's book). Santorum has been
> hitting the talk show circuit complaining about parents not
> spending enough time with their childre, and he is not talking
> about shortening the American work week! The true intention of the
> religious right, to remove women from nontraditional roles and
> employment, is beginning to come out honestly now.
>
> Some people may think of themselves as being very liberal and
> progressive, but I find that some people who view themselves
> that way are actually very conventional, and many people,
> indlucing politicians, adopt the rhetoric of the right (note
> all of the Democrats pitching their promises to "working families,"
> the opposite, of course, being all of those single women on welfare,
> the scapegoats).
>
> > At 01:12 PM 8/17/05 -0400, Linda Seltzer wrote:
> >>I used to believe things like this when I was young. I thought
> >>that all of the older women who didn't achieve high positions
> >>were just not polite enough or gracious or charming enough, so
> >>I became the model of politeness and personality and graciousness.
> >>When you reach the age of 40 you know better.
> >
> > Alex was 42 when she wrote that essay.
> > http://www.alexshapiro.org/ASBio.html
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST