On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > >> At 04:03 PM Tuesday 10/21/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >>> I might, or might not. Choosing someone for a public office >> >> — or any job — >> >>> based on their gender/religion*/ethnicity first and their >>> qualifications second is as offensive to me in the case of >>> choosing "a qualified Hispanic woman" as it is "a qualified >>> white man".
Quite so, except where gender, religion, or ethnicity are part of the qualifications. It may be more effective for a rape counsellor to be female, a boys' PE teacher to be male, and so forth (including the obvious example of clergy, as noted). My dear wife gets practically livid when she is asked to join a group (at work, when she was in an office, or at church now) because she is either female or of Japanese ancestry. It is is a sure way to get her dander up. The existence of organizations like the "Hewlett-Packard Black Women Engineers" (or the like, if that exact group does not exist, and it probably does, under the rubric of diversity), is part of the problem, not a solution to it, says she, and I agree. Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
