Woman-hating, Racist, insecure, little man
YANY MUHAMMAD (firstname.lastname@example.org)
6 Nov 1996 21:25:22 -0500
I read this piece of mindless drivel at first out of curiousity. I'm
surprised by your ignorance and your need to place blame on other members
of society, namely Black People or as you called them "colored." You are
a very sad, shallow, pathetic, fearful and insecure woman-hating little
especially found intriguing your need to demean others and place yourself
in an authoritative position, over again Black people and white women or
as you referred to, "our own women." I believe it was with the suffrage
movement, and bra burning in the 1920's, that "your women" won the right
to vote. Hell, in 1905 Grover Cleveland said, "sensible and responsible
women do not want to vote."
You also speak of "deteriorating workplaces" where you've worked, and that
you found this even when you switched jobs. Did you ever stop to think
that maybe, just maybe, it's you. Your job performance or ability was
lacking or didn't quite make the grade. You strike me as a bit paranoid, &
like maybe as a child you took the little yellow school bus.
I just hope your taking your medication when the doctor tells you to. You
are very sociopathic.
On 1 Nov 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote:
> Females Lead US to Last Place
> About twenty years ago, I was a member of a white-collar,
> professional team at a very well known (and supposedly
> prestigious) corporation. Each week, the group manager would
> assemble the team around a conference table, and each team
> member would give a personal status report regarding his progress
> during the previous week. I remember the first meeting which I
> attended. Virtually no work progress was reported by anyone. All
> that was heard were extremely lame excuses, such as "I called
> so-and-so, but his line was busy, so I couldn't get my work done;"
> "My pencil broke, and the supply cabinet was locked so I couldn't get
> my work done;" or "I sneezed, and I went home sick, so I couldn't get
> my work done." I expected the group manager to go into a fit of
> rage, but his reaction was one of pure complacency.
> I was on that project for two years, and the first-week sample was
> quite an accurate predictor of what things would be like in the
> larger time frame. Somewhere along the line I went to a coworker,
> and I asked him: "Who do you think is the stellar performer of this
> group?" He replied, "What we have here is a twenty-way tie for
> last place." At the time, I thought his response was very humorous.
> Little did I know that that response would form the insight for an
> analysis which would emerge twenty years later.
> I eventually left that job and moved on to the next one. Pretty much
> the same things were observed: extremely low levels of morale,
> productivity, and quality of output. I kept saying to myself: "It can
> only be these two employers. Things have to be better elsewhere.
> The profit motive of a business enterprise has to force high
> performance standards, otherwise the entity will go defunct." So I
> moved on to the third employer with high expectations, and what
> did I find? More of the same! All along I had a nagging suspicion
> that equal employment opportunity had something to do with all of
> this, but I could not put my finger on it. What made things
> especially difficult to understand was the conspicuous absence of
> people of color in my profession. How in the world could I correlate
> the promotion of equality for the downtrodden with the problems of
> my profession when the downtrodden were nowhere to be found?
> This really hampered the formulation of my analysis.
> What made matters much worse for the formulation of my analysis
> was that I, like so many others, was a product of the sophistries
> which had made the rounds at the time during which the first civil
> rights bills were being debated. The promoters of those new laws
> made assurances that equal employment opportunities would be
> reserved only for the most qualified of job candidates among the
> protected segments of the population, so there would be absolutely
> no negative impact on the world of employment. To the contrary,
> they further assured that the new entrants into the employment
> arena would enhance the competitive environment thereby raising
> prevailing performance standards and compensation levels (this lie
> being in stark contrast to the later abomination which evolved:
> affirmative action.) To compound matters even further, I really had
> myself fooled. I was so self-confident that I firmly believed that
> nothing, but nothing - equal employment opportunity included -
> could ever impair my own worth in the marketplace.
> While the workplace steadily deteriorated before my very eyes, it
> similarly could not escape my attention that as the years were
> going by, neighborhood after neighborhood and whole cities were
> deteriorating with increasing decay of the infrastructure and ever
> escalating crime statistics. Again, a suspicion nagged at me that
> the promotion of equality had to be responsible for all of this, but
> still there was no germ of logic for the formulation of an analysis.
> As luck would have it, a number of unlikely occurrences converged
> upon me, especially in the last two years or so, and as a result of
> these occurrences (which need not be detailed here), it seemed like
> the floodgates of inspiration opened for me, and all of my
> suspicions regarding government enforced equality congealed into
> an analysis.
> Let's go back to my coworker's humorous comment: "What we have
> here is a twenty way tie for last place," and let's consider a TV
> game show with three contestants. What would happen if the
> producer of the show revised the rules such that the second place
> contestant and not the first place contestant would be declared the
> day's champion winning the grand prize? Would any contestant ever
> depress his response button? Of course not! You would have a three
> way tie for last place! Declaring the second place contestant the
> winner in a three way contest is pretty extreme, so let's consider a
> baseball league of 1,000 teams which institutes a rule that the
> second place team takes home the trophy. What will you see? A
> 1,000 way tie for last place!
> Of course, the real world arena of employment will not work as
> swiftly and precisely as the game show or baseball examples above,
> but don't let this fool you. Workplace perceptions are such that
> jobs are not being awarded on the basis of competitive merit, but
> on the basis of legal/political considerations, and so everyone in
> the "corrupted" competitive arena of employment is finding himself
> moving towards a multi-way tie for last place, AND you will see
> this sort of thing happening even if the least preferred job
> candidate is never awarded a job by anyone! All that it takes is the
> awarding of a job to the second place job candidate under the
> dictates of a competition corrupting law! As a general rule, who is
> perceived to be the second place job candidate? The white female!
> And there were plenty of these in my profession!
> If there is no clear-cut, discernible reward associated with being
> number one, then there is no point to being number one, so no one
> will strive to be number one. Prevailing performance standards
> will decline all the way down to the bare minimum which will still
> allow a worker to keep his job and paycheck with that bare
> minimum itself declining day by day.
> To view things from another perspective, under equal employment
> opportunity you have job candidates who assume the following
> attitude: "I don't have to elevate myself to the expectations of
> anyone. Employers have to take me as I come." Equal housing
> opportunity has dwelling seekers assuming the very same kind of
> attitude, and so you see a downward bidding spiral of performance
> standards in housing as well as in employment.
> But there is more - much more! The subject of declining wage
> levels has become quite an issue in the media. Depending on whom
> you listen to, real wages have dropped by as much as 50% over the
> last 25 years. I have personally witnessed real wage erosion of
> more than 50% in the last thirteen years or so in my own
> profession, yet newscasters have said that economists are at a
> loss to explain this wage erosion.
> The smallest of memories holds the explanation for this wage
> erosion. An Economics teacher of mine stated that markets will not
> tolerate transactions whose prices are greater than what the
> market will bear. When asked what would happen if such
> transactions did, in fact, take place, he answered that the markets
> will go into "self-correction" mode whereby price would be brought
> into line with value. This subject was never touched upon again in
> the remainder of my Economics education apparently because such
> transactions were considered to be so rare as not to warrant
> further attention.
> If a seller makes a decent effort to peddle his offering in the
> marketplace, he will eventually get a handle on what the market
> will bear for his offering, this being what the highest bidder will
> be willing to pay for that offering. The same holds true for a job
> seeker (labor seller).
> It may be a brutal fact, but prior to equal employment opportunity,
> the coloreds, no matter how hard they tried, could not command the
> same compensation levels as whites. The simple conclusion here is
> that white pay is more than what the market will bear for coloreds.
> Coloreds were led to believe that the passage of a civil law
> mandating equal pay could circumvent the natural laws of
> Economics for them - a false bill of goods, indeed!.
> The passage of the equal employment opportunity laws created an
> obligation (or should I say liability) on the part of employers to pay
> coloreds wages equal to those of whites, this being, at least
> initially, a price which was greater than what the market would
> bear for the coloreds. So what has happened in the last thirty years
> or so? The employment market unleashed self-correcting forces to
> bring the price of coloreds into line with their value per the natural
> law of Economics.
> The self-correcting forces of the marketplace to which I allude are
> inflation, wage concessions, downsizings, mergers and
> acquisitions, exporting of jobs to foreign countries ("Globalism"),
> the rush to automation, the outsourcing of work to non-union shops,
> unpaid overtime, the utilization of immigrant, temporary, and
> part-time workers, conversion of workers to independent
> contractors, the elimination of benefits, the relocation of
> operations to low-wage states, and more.
> So you see, while the [real] wages of the unpreferred job candidates
> are being brought down into line with their value, the wages of the
> preferred job candidates are likewise being brought down because,
> by civil law, wages must be equal!
> Now for the shocker. Some of you may be thinking that this wage
> erosion does not apply to you because your employer does not hire
> any unpreferred workers. The irony here is that the least preferred
> job candidate does not even have to be awarded a job to affect the
> wage structure where you work; all that he has to do is be in the
> employment market with certain laws attached to his back thereby
> offering a threat of a claim for equal wages. A discriminatory
> employer holds the lowest concept of value for the least preferred
> job candidate, so this employer will be least likely to set forth
> incentives for the least preferred job candidate to sue for a job
> with equal (that is, premium) wages. In other words, your boss will
> not pay you white wages just because he likes to maintain a lily
> white shop. No! He's more concerned about being sued by someone
> who isn't worth the money being sought.
> Conclusions: We see that the concept of equality as it pertains to
> society and Economics is an extremely faulty notion - a notion
> which will only work in the downward direction for performance
> standards and compensation levels. The insistence that further
> efforts be made to effectuate "equality" will only accelerate our
> society's movement towards collapse. (And who is most savagely
> aggressive when it comes to enforcing their so-called "rights"
> under the law? Why, our very own females!)