Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (234370)	3/5/2002 11:20:32 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769668

As long as gays have separate quarters & bathroom facilities, it's fine. Do you believe it's fair for heterosexual men to have to share shower facilities(without privacy) with someone who would ogle them?.....it just presents a situation that would cause much tension. I would never want to share intimate quarters with lesbians.

To: rich4eagle who wrote (234370)	3/5/2002 11:55:56 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 769668

If I were a commander at sea, I would not want to think about anything, ANYTHING, other than the mission. So for me, it depends on professional behavior of all sailors. If my officers started organizing feminist or gay activities, they would be gone in a New York minute. If my officers started persecuting a fellow officer because of an attribute that officer was not flaunting and making an issue of, they would be gone in a New York minute too. I was raised in a profession where women were very uncommon -- almost unheard of outside the cookhouse. Even the clerks were men. But in my first year of employment, I spent the summer at the top of a 7500 foot mountain, Diablo, while two women and several other men manned other lookouts. The women did as well as the men, as far as I could tell. We communicated by radio, and it was fun having women to talk to. As a matter of fact, I was acquainted at one time with the first woman forester. She was the daughter of an Army Colonel and her goal was to become a ranger. She never made that goal but did manage to marry one, and in the process also became a silviculturist, which is the specialty of forestry that I practice. That was many years ago. Now women are commonplace, and I personally have worked for three different women rangers. They were all fine, and in fact brought perspectives that men lacked. The only time I have a problem with them is when they try to emulate a man's way of doing the job. That way they fail to bring out the qualities that would make their performance distinctive. I do have a problem with organizations that push women (or anybody) faster than they should be just to gain the affirmative action notoriety for themselves. It is stupid, and always fails. Unfortunately, my profession has been unable to attract many members from non-white races. I've known only a few Blacks, a Chinese, a Native American, a Hispanic in my profession. I attribute this to cultural biases, not in my profession because we've always been open and inviting, but on the part of the various minorities and in the communities where we carry out our mission. Some people might say this is a cop out, but it is quite true. Many remote work stations are difficult even for whites. Non-whites just don't see that being 50 miles from town and the only person of a different race many of your neighbors have ever seen has anything in it for them. That's OK by me, but if you are being judged on your affirmative action performance, you can't get a good rating just by trying. You have to perform; therefore you can't get a good rating without the cooperation of extraordinary minority persons.