Hungarian born, Canadian businessman-accountant will travel to Budapest
during the summer,1996.

   Will take on assignments to look for business opportunities,  do
investment and business evaluations and audits.

--
Robert Gelb C.M.A., Robert Gelb and Associates Inc.
12 Bradenton Drive,Willowdale,Ontario M2H 1Y5, Canada
(905)940-2380, (905)946-1734 FAX
e-mail: 
- Investment Specialists
- Business Plan Preparations and Evaluations,                           -
Business Management and Financial Consulting
- Mergers and acquisitions

There are a few areas of distinct cultural difference between the Anglo-Celtic
world and Central Europe.  It took me a while to wake up to them after moving
to Australia, and I have a feeling that many of the Hungay list's non-Hungarian
readers may not be aware of these differences.

One of the first things that struck me in Australia was the almost total lack
of pomposity in academic circles.  Experience with academics from other Anglo-
Celtic countries, and to a lesser extent with Germans, has convinced me that
the difference is broader than a mere Australia-Hungary dichotomy.

As far as academic pomposity is concerned, it is hardly a Hungarian speciality.
Many of you may have encountered proper German addressation in correspondance
such as 'Herr Professor Dr. Dr. Dummkopf'.  Apart from finding it a tad
pretentious that one should use all these titles rather than just the 'highest'
one, English speakers would assume that the person in question, in addition to
being a man, has two PhDs and a professorial chair.

But it is not necessarily so.

In Hungary, and I presume in Germany too, heads of academic departments are
routinely called Professor, even without having a chair.

In the Central-European tradition, doctoral TITLES extend beyond those holding
medical degrees, to plain graduates from law or veterinary courses.  (In Latin
America, all university graduates are courteously addressed as doctor, but that
is for another day.)

Then there is that traditional range of postgraduate QUALIFICATIONS.  In
Hungary, there have been three doctoral qualifications: the 'small' or
university-level doctor, the 'candidate' and the 'doctor of sciences'.  The
latter two used to be awarded by the Academy of Sciences, while first used to
be the domain of individual universities.  For the university doctoral degree,
a thesis of around 30,000 words was required, pretty well like a thesis-only
Masters in the English tradition.  Requirements for the candidate and doctor
of sciences were longer theses, language exams and documented scientific
achievement.  The UK/US/Australia/etc. PhD is closest to the Candidate Degree.
While this system was an exact copy of the Soviet one, I understand that the
German regime is also different from that of Anglo-Celtic countries.

Hence, our Herr Professor Dr. Dr. Dummkopf may be just a vet with what would
pass for a Masters in English-speaking countries, acting as head of department.

He is most likely a bloke, though.


George Antony

Re: you article
Ok Eva, you win!  After reading your words, this issue has me
sufficiently riled!  You'd better have time to digest it too!:).

1) - Please advise us all, as to the frequency of ur visit(s) to Hungary
     during the past ten years
2) - Please indicate the scope of the people you are exposed to while
     there (by this I do mean "classes")
3) - Please clearly relay, the exact source of your "statistics"

"I have done a little research on .... etc" - is extremely evident.

While the words within ur text(s) are generally full of quotes and stats,
and, ur intelligence is obviously above average, you apparently lack a
great deal of "hands on insight" to back up your stated interpretations.

Forgive me, I honestly do not mean to sound obnoxious; but what u state,
are about as far from "my" observations than is a trip to the moon before
midnight.

My experience with Hungarians, ranges from the ages of 6 mos -  89+.
Obviously, this entails several generations worth of mentalities.  They
are as follows:

Before the crack of dawn, it has been the men, who insured that fresh
bread, kifli, zsomle is readily available for breakfast and uzsonna
preparations.  It is the men, who awaken the women with coffee in bed,
after that has been accomplished.  (and I am sure you are aware, that
could be several women in an extended family setting, of which Hung can
boast #s of). It is the same men, who truck off to some godforsaken place
in Hungary, in order to secure the goods for their respective businesses
for the day, if not they are the same men, who have been awoken at least
four times during the night to answer some sort of an emergency with
regards to their positions. (I know, since I usually answer the bloody
phone).  It is further them, who insure that the kids are brought to
school,and their respective after school programs. If additional help is
required in their sports, u will never find a female, that volunteers.
Should the men, not be available, it has been discussed the eve before.
But guaranteed, that the car is brought out from the garage, and warmed -
ready to go for the occassion.  (while this may seem trivial to you,it
would not, in fact u wuld consider it an amazing gesture I am sure; that
is of course, if you have ever had to "un-garage" a vehicle from a
traditional Hungarian garage).

As for meals, yes, the ladies do cook.  They visit the market on a daily
basis, right before or after and/or en route to their jobs; they have
also managed to schedule and actually meet their tri weekly hair
appointments, weekly cosmetician sessions and/or massagages and daily
workouts.  These very same women, are equipped with all the toys, that us
N/A's have come to take for granted.  Their versions might not be nearly
as big, colourful or versatile, but from the fridge to the breadmachine,
including the dishwasher and washer and dryer are there.  Most of them
are equipped with at least one computer/fax and the rare one with email.

On a daily basis, you will often find one of the generations of men, in
the kitchen, helping out with mostly potatoe/carrot peeling, cutting
onions, gutting the animals (in the rural areas), and espcially making
the wine.  The gardening?  Considered too hard for "the females" mostly
amongst the 60+ group unless it happens to be their passions.

Sundays, the men get a real great break.  They actually can read the
paper, or get rowdy with their friends over a traditional
beer/wine/brandy, after of course they have helped with the meal
preparation.  That is providing, the kids don't need any help with
anything - which always takes priority over all.  The other exception of
course is when halaszle, or outside dishes are being cooked (BBQ is big
on their list the other i think is called bograncs?) - then, you never
see a female in sight - those are clearly "male bonding sessions"  The
ladies always serve the meal (by choice, you would find, if you were ever
to ask them - not because they feel that it is their duty).  After
dinner, you will often find, that it is the women who gather the dishes
and it is the men, who are washing them - where are the women? They are
there too.  Getting coffee, dessert and kids organized - while
interacting with the jokes that are flying between the group.

The majority of these women, can and should (by our standards) but rarely
boast of having their own professions - being the local doctor or the
hosting housewife.  But ironically enough, through their drudgery, they
regularly enjoy, what we N/A women can only dream about.  This would of
course include the ease of mind regarding their kids, when considering a
vacation with their mate.  Mom and Dad, are always ready and willing to
pick up the pieces.  Should Mom and Dad however, decide to be vacationing
simultaneously, (rare, rare, occassion) no problem.  The offsprings are
delivered to the nearest great-nanny/who without prior warning phone
call, request etc, is always ready and willing.  Boy!!!  Tough Eva!!!
Women, really have it tough these days in Hungary!!!

Say...how many women out there, married, working in or out of home
fitting the above;  go the the hairdresser 3x/week, weekly to a
cosmetician, masseuse and daily workouts - not to mention the flexibility
of an always built in babysitter, who not only adores your child(ren) but
can acutally impart generations worth of tradition, not to mention
history during the time that they have them?.. please identify
yourselves!!!

Amazingly enough, be it them working for an institution, a private ind.,
or themselves, there appears to be a great deal of respect extented to
these women (especially from their respective men).  Housecleaning you
ask?  Believe or not, appears to be a fairly even split.  Some of the men
prefer to do it themselves (they claim a higher aptitude for it than that
of their female counterparts), others, simply do what has to be done -
regardless of the sex of the individual.  But for sure:  I have never
seen a female cutting grass in Hungary!

The major differences that I have observed is that, discussing the roles
of sexuality is non-existant.  They have actually found more interesting
things to argue about and feminism is never on the subject)! - (but that
would take another hour).  My conclusion is simply that it is the
respective relationship evolved between any of these couples that has
laid the foundation for the obviously mutual respect/co-existance/
co-operations/love/understanding - u call it! Nevertheless it is
amazingly there, and it is so, without spending any great amount of time
discussing it!  So in short Eva, I think that Hungary in general is doing
extremely well on your favourite topic! - and for sure, they do not need
any outside influences - least of all from the western mentalities - who
clearly appear to be more concerned about making judgements from poorly
gathered statistics, than observing the culture which has long been
smoldering, progress on it's own.(despite all odds).  I believe that,
they are extremely worthy of admiration!!!

As for Austria:  Please visit Kaprun, (one of the tourists gems of
austria).  90% of the businesses are women owned and operated.  These
women are the biggest of globetrotters (other than the zillionaires of
the world of course).  One, for ur info, has been instrumental in
internationalizing a company, who manufactures ski wear for extreme
ski wear.  (Degree7).  The founder, was killed during a mountain climbing
accident.

  The entire village was "women" conceived!  In fact, last winter, there
was more female representation on the local level than than male.  As for
state level... that's another hour which I truly don't have!



"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:
>There are topics which lend themselves to vigorous debates: feminism is one
>of them. As far as the Hungarian situation is concerned (and you can add the
>whole former socialist bloc) I have done a little research on it a few years
>ago when a local woman's college invited me to speak about women in socialist
>countries. Peter Hidas is quite right: from Marx on there was a lot of talk
>about female equality but in practice it is something else. In the fifties
>women entered the labor force in large numbers, partly as a result of planned
>economic necessity, partly beacuse women were supposed to be equal to men.
>But little effort was made to lighten their burden at home--most women work
>themselves to death. Getting up at the crack of dawn, taking the child to
>nursery school, going to work, picking up the child, traveling hours on
>crowded buses, doing the daily shopping, going home and doing the household
>chores. And all this with a less mechanized household than what we are
>accustomed to. Loads of fun!
>
>I read the statistics then and since, and believe me the men in these
>countries do even less at home than they do in the United States. A great
>deal less. Also women in politics are rare, their numbers in parliament are
>small and even people who are supposed to be more enlightened and modern
>(SZDSZ activists) say things like: men are fully capable of representing
>women's issues in the political arena--no need for women to participate. This
>and similar announcements lead me to believe that "feminist liberation" is
>way overdue in Hungary.
>
>As for Andras Kornai's example of Austria is concerned. Oh, my God! Austria
>is one of the most provincial countries I have ever encountered, and it is
>too bad that Austria is taken as an example for Hungarian social development.
>But in Austria at least there are no pretenses. What is so galling is the
>lip-service which is being paid to equality in the former socialist
>countries. Andras mentions Latin America--again, at least there is no
>pretense.
>
>Eva Balogh

and I object being called an ardent believer of
anything. So far you had no convincing arguments
besides "it never worked" to wich I provided ample
and sufficient arguments.  Also you failed to put
forward any point in favour of your market economy
being a more practical proposition in solving the
problems of the various crises we face more and more
often (halmozottan). Eva Durant

>
> Joe Szalai objects to my using the word "we" in "we know your political
> views." Fine, I can certainly change it to "I know your political views."
> Mind you, I have been on this list for two years, and as far as I know there
> have been only two ardent believers in utopistic socialism: you and Eva
> Durant. Everybody else thought that Marx's utopia is nothing more than a
 utopia.
>
> Eva Balogh

I forgot to add, that there are a few "closet marxists"
on the list, who send me their word of sympathy at times,
it seems, that the democracy we have is not sufficient
for them to dare to go any further. But the times are a-
changing, as they do. Continuously. Eva Durant


>
> Joe Szalai objects to my using the word "we" in "we know your political
> views." Fine, I can certainly change it to "I know your political views."
> Mind you, I have been on this list for two years, and as far as I know there
> have been only two ardent believers in utopistic socialism: you and Eva
> Durant. Everybody else thought that Marx's utopia is nothing more than a
 utopia.
>
> Eva Balogh

I wonder why you haven't noticed my mailings
in the sport issue, I sent at least two.
Remember, I'm a girlie. Eva Durant



>
> Haliho,
>
> It is funny that only the fiuk are bantering about this, but don't discount
 the
> sport aspect of it. Women in sport are a very important piece of the pie,
 here,
> whether it be American or Hungarian. When women are past their prime, such as
> Egerszegi Krisztina, Onodi Heni, Czigany Kinga, Koban Rita, Gyarmati Andrea
> (remember her?), Temesvari Andrea, and the like, how do they get treated?? It
> is safe (and shameful) to say that you'll never hear or see of them again,
> unlike their male counterparts who can milk it till they pass away. So, is it
> fair??
>
> Think about it.
>
> Udv.,
> Czifra Jancsi
> john_czifra @ shi.com

Welcome to the list and thanks for your contribution,
but I hope the next ones will be a bit shorter, I
only have finite tea and lunchbreakes...

Eva Durant (I cannot find any males to beat me in table-tennis,
            though I used to play in the Budapest 1 league a
            very long time ago (Egyetertes), the biggest fun is
            to beat muslim men, they really can't take it well.)

> economic planning.  Still I see it as one of the better roads to follow to
> reach the ultimate goal of social and economic justice.  Following the
> analogy, socialism, either in it's pure Marx/Engels ideal or in any of the
> forms that it has taken in reality, is a dead end road.
>


Could you please give me some indication, how you picture this
way to social and economic justice through capitalism. I am VERY
interested, as I cannot see any indication that a/ this is indeed
the aim of a capitalist system b/ that it is practical
 Also, on what basis can you disregard the "pure"
ideal, not so far experienced, of democratic socialism. Thank you.
Eva Durant

While a bit long-winded again, in fact I think my idea
of the planned economy (as described in my previous mail)
has been supported here by someone of the highest authority...
Eva Durant (of suspect genealogy and education, but a happy
                human being with well  thought through opinions)



>
> Well, I'm still catching up on all the postings on the various subjects.
> Missed this one earlier among others because I didn't realize how many
> screens of postings I had actually received.  Oops!
>
> Also realized that in my introductor statement I forgot to mention I've had
> a few business courses and  personal "tutoring" in economics by a couple of
> pretty good economists.  I was personally acquainted with, and provided
> materials for his public television show to, the late Walter Heller, if
> anyone here knows who that is, since he died about 8 years ago.
>
> Ok, enough triviality, now for the thought for discussion--and be sure to
> catch the "smiley" at the end of this all.
>
> A semi-planned economy is possible, but not a detail planned one.  The
> semi-planned economy simply takes into account well-established basic needs
> that always have to be addressed for simple survival, and for realistically
> anticipated growth, or other changes in the human population.  It deals with
> macroissues, such as simply the general, macro-means of providing enough
> housing, food, clothing, transportation and medical care, for a population
> that is either aging, growing, whatever.  Like any other good program, there
> has to be benchmarks for monitoring and evaluation, both in time and in
> means terms.
>
> The semi-planned economy of this nature is based on Maslow's Law of Needs,
> depicted usually as a "needs pyramid."  The management of the semi-planned
> economy is based upon the standards common to both the best studies of
> actual, successful business and nonprofit organizational management.  That
> is every program has the following from "top to bottom:" (all levels are to
> be "achievable realistic") goals; objectives within the goals;  strategies
> for achievement; tactics within the strategies; a timetable for both every
> objective and the goals; and finally built-in review and evaluation both at
> set intervals along the progress of all the objectives and the overall goal.
> The reviews and evaluations must allow corrections to the objectives or even
> complete scrapping--rather like evaluations of projects within a business.
> It is a waste of resources to continue doing something that has increasing
> evidence of potential failure, or can be done in another way more effectively
.
>
> Thus for a planned economy to be successful, it must be flexible, and only
> deal with real needs, and reasonable certainties and must be aware of
> changes in both.  It cannot locked in concrete from day one, or be bent to
> political ideology that while it tries to address needs, has not thoroughly
> and professionally studied them, and all the possible solutions based upon
> real historical precedents--at all levels.
>
> Most planned economies have tried to do too much, and have either been set
> in concrete from day one or somehow become ossified along the way.
> Considering the qualities of human nature--and it is human beings that
> create these plans, etc., it is probably safer and smarter to do less of
> this than more, to allow the greatest possible freedom and amount of time to
> correct the numerous, inevitable, equally individual, human errors of
> observation and judgement.
>
> Oh my goodness, brothers and sisters! I really need to start reading some
> more items besides books on business, history, etc..  I'm beginning to write
> more and more like some ivory tower intellectual, or is it Jane Austen.
> Yikes!!!  I think I'll revisit my Mark Twain or Louisa May Alcott for awhile
>  while I recuperate from the knee problems.  (See, I'm not always an
> "intellectual,"--I have a right knee--semi-the total of two--that seems to
> be a close relative of that of Joe Namath--and it didn't get that way by
> reading and writing...)  ;-)
>
>
> Respectfully and semi-seriously in all this,
>
>
> Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
>
> 3273 B Rocky Water Lane
> San Jose, CA, USA 95148
> tel. & fax: 408-223-6102
> e-mail: 
>
> P.S. There's a very good part of Murphy's Law that reflects some real
> observations.  It goes something like, "the effectiveness and success of any
> program, especially in government, is in inverse proportion to the quantity
> of resources and planning dedicated to it."  In other word, the larger-and
> more detailed--the project, the less likely it will be successful.
>
> Of course whatever social scientist came up with this one was not the first
> good observer.  An earlier, more homespun version is simply, "too many cooks
> spoil the broth."
>
> According to the anthropologists, human beings haven't changed much in at
> least 40,000 years...
>
>
>
> AE0M, Tony Becker -  - Silicon Valley, U.S.A.

So the gist of it: there were always rich and poor peaople
in every society, and if you are balancing cleverly, you can
go on like that forever. Is this what you're saying?
(You're either a good teacher (if I understood you)
or a good politician (if I didn't)...)

I don't think you can call a country socialist, just because
most of transport/energy/ etc was nationalised. The purpose
is usually 1/ to supply cheap energy/infrastructure/raw materials
              to the ailing private sector;
           2/ to channel funds to the elite olegarchia.

I think Indonasia only "enjoyed" the support of the USSR until
the bloody putch of Suharto, who due to his massive purchase
of arms is in the good book of all haroic fighters of democracy
in the US/West establishment, they can even overrun others
such as East-Timor with much more human suffering than Quwait
affair ever suggested... but that is an other story.
Eva Durant


>
> Just found this thread.  Hmmm, seems to me we need a lot better education in
> real world history in a lot of nations, and a little less nationalistic
> emphasis on history education, not just in the U.S.
>
> Indonesia and Mexico as capitalist nations???  Have you discussed this with
> either the PRI, or Mr. Suharto?  That's not what they claim to have based
> their economies--largely still operating, accordingly, on.  Remember the
> Mexican revolution of 1910--against the U.S. friendly dictator, Porfirio
> Diaz?  The revolutionaries won, and they killed a whole bunch of landowners


-cut-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

>From the obituary in the New York Times on 25 Jan:

"Sandor Iharos, 65; Champion Runner Set 11 World Marks

Sandor Iharos of Hungary, a middle-distance and distance runner
who broke seven world records in 14 months in 1955 and 1956, has
died in Budapest. He was 65 years old.

The announcement was made yesterday by the International Amateur
Athletic Federation, the world governing body of track and field,
from its offices in Monte Carlo. It said Mr. Iharos died Tuesday
or yesterday. No cause of death was given.

For a minimally muscled man of 5 feet 11 inches and 132 pounds who
never ran until late in his teens, Mr. Iharos progressed quickly. He
set 11 world records, and he ranked with compatriots Laszlo Tabori
and Istvan Rozsavolgyi among the world's elite runners. All three
were coached by Mihaly Igloi.

>From May 14, 1955, to July 16, 1956, Mr. Iharos set world records
for 1500 meters (3 minutes 40.8 seconds), 3000 meters (7:55.6),
two miles (8.33.4), three miles (13:14.2), 5000 meters (13:40.6),
six miles (27:43.8) and 10000 meters (28:42.8). The 10000-meter
record came in his first race at that distance."

.......

CSABA K ZOLTANI

In article >,  (John
P. Pagano) writes:

>And now, after all the insane, ping-ponging attacks and peripheral
>discussions about the subtexts in "The Usual Suspects" -- sincere thanks
>yous to Doug and Sam for contributing to both these threads -- I have
>finally been told by a "real" Turk (the father of a friend) that "Soze"
>is the Turkish word for "word" in the dative case.
>
>Just thought I should round off the discussion.

Let me help you "round" it off with some direct evidence not adduced from
an unattributed "real" Turk. (What would constitute a pseudo-Turk, I
wonder?) Let's start off with:

"It (The Usual Suspects) involves figures as wildly mysterious as Keyser
Soze, the fierce, off-camera Hungarian who is referred to as `the devil
himself' and whose very name seems to give the film makers a noirish
thrill. Soze is as fabulously improbable as Pete Postlethwaite's
Kobayashi, whose dark makeup and Pakistani accent just dare the viewer to
call his bluff." -- Janet Maslin; "Putting Guys Like That in a Room
Together;" New York Times; August 16, 1995.

"He's working for Keyser Soze, a Hungarian crime lord whose homicidal
ferocity has made him a figure of terrifying legend." -- Jack Kroll;
"Crooks, Creeps and Cons;" Newsweek; August 28, 1995.

"`Keyser Soze,' rasps the burn victim in the hospital, and the cops around
him don't understand what he's saying. Slowly, the words begin to make
sense: other people have heard of Soze -- the Hungarian warlord who
murdered his own children, who came to America, who murders anyone who
displeases him, or anyone he pleases." -- Anthony Lake; "The Big Roundup;"
New Yorker; August 14, 1995.

How could such major film critics make such a terrible error of fact
independently of one another? My inclination would be to blame the press
flacks at Gramercy Pictures. They obviously didn't check with the film's
director or script writer to ascertain that Keyser Soze is Turkish.
Confusing a Hungarian for a Turk is on the same order of magnitude as,
say, confusing an Iowa corn farmer with a Guatemalan campesino. My error
in this regard was three-fold: 1) Actually going to see the movie; 2)
Paying close attention to it while I was in the theater; 3) Not seeking
out a "real" Turk afterwards to enlighten me about Soze's nationality.

And to think that I actually dared responding to your second post with a
reply that pointed out: 1) That I couldn't find "Soze" among the several
Hungarian-English dictionaries I own and 2) That I did find "soz" in
several of the Turkish-English dictionaries I own. Apparently it took a
"real" Turk to drill Point #2 into your skull several weeks after I handed
it to you. Do you depend on this man for stock market tips, clothing
suggestions, etc.?

As for Ibokor's observation, there wasn't enough reprinted in your post
for me to determine whether or not he has actually seen "The Usual
Suspects" in the cut shown in theaters in the United States. If he did, he
would have seen the critical scene where FBI agents and local police rush
to the burn center at the hospital in San Pedro and, through an
interpreter speaking an obscure dialect of Turkish that would be 100%
intelligible to your average Janos on the street in Budapest without any
prior study, learn about Keyser Soze from the sole survivor of the ship
fire. A glaring continuity error haunts this particular scene -- in the
scene directly before it, one of the FBI agents tells another FBI agent to
get an interpreter who speaks Hungarian and go to the hospital and talk to
this survivor. He obviously meant for the agent to procure the services of
a Turkish translator. The film-makers obviously could have benefitted from
the services of a "real" Turk consultant. Oh, and one other continuity
error from the burn unit scene -- the toasty schmuck in the bed pronounces
"Soze" as "Sher-zey." (One of the transliteration systems from Hungarian
I've seen used here wo

Mr Dunfords obviously has found a lucky bunch of
women in Hungary.  I know many, and I lived there
on a permanent basis not so long ago, and visit
fairly frequently.  I don't know anyone going to
the hairdresser three times a week.  In the village
it is (usually very) old ladies who tend to the
vegetable gardens. I don't go on. Women are probably
the same happy with their life, than anywhere else.
However, if their voices are not heard, that means they
are  more down-trodden, not that they are over happy.
I just received an issue of HVG which seems to tackle the
issue, I'll let you know, when I have time to read it,
perhaps Eva Balogh will comment on it by then.
Eva Durant

At 04:31 PM 1/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>HUNGARY   Eva writes :
>>his comments about the "girls" who should leave this list and go elsewhere,
> I did not tell the girls to leave. Not et all. I was talking about
> the subject.

First of all, the word "girl" to describe an adult woman--and most of us on
this list are between forty and sixty--is degrading. I am sure that you no
longer consider yourself a "boy." Well, I no longer consider myself a
"girl." I was a girl until about the age of 18 and, unfortunately, that was
a long time ago.


>>precisely to the Szalon, a list which by right-wing circles is considered a
> I have never subscribed the Szalon, I do not know its profile,
> but talk about feminism - I was told - belongs to it.
>

You were told! I wonder by whom! And why? The Szalon happens to be a
moderated list and a lot of people participate there who can no longer
stomach the Forum.

>>insensitivity. Unless, of
> I am not insensitive! My opinion was that only : this subject belongs
> to elsewhere. If you feel safe in Hungary to talk about this, do it.


And what on earth does it mean: "If you feel safe in Hungary to talk about
this." Am I supposed to be afraid of somebody? Am I not suppose to express
my own opinions concerning a rather vital issue in Hungary because some of
the "boys" don't like it?

Eva Balogh

After reading 'dunfords' rather lenghty rebuttal of comments made by Eva
Balogh all I could think of was that one of us swallowed some LSD some time
ago and still haven't stopped hallucinating.  Either that, or Hungary is in
need of a men's liberation movement.

Tears welled up in my eyes and then rolled down my cheek as I read about the
plight of the poor, downtrodden Hungarian men as they slaved away making yet
another thankless pot of bogracsgulyas.  I too have witnessed this horrific
scene.  I still have vivid memories of men sweating away beside a hot fire,
often with a limp fag dangling from their mouths and drinking copious
amounts of beer, wine, or palinka.  Stupid me!  I used to think that they
were having fun and now it turns out that they were drinking to ease the
pain of their powerlessness. Surely, only Sappho would take delight at
seeing the condition of Hungarian men as we approach the next millennium.

Joe Szalai

At 10:09 AM 1/25/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>First of all, the word "girl" to describe an adult woman--and most of us on
>this list are between forty and sixty--is degrading. I am sure that you no
>longer consider yourself a "boy." Well, I no longer consider myself a
>"girl." I was a girl until about the age of 18 and, unfortunately, that was
>a long time ago.

In a futile attempt to disguise their contempt, racists and sexists and
bigots of all kind often use the diminutive and/or pseudo-affectionate form
of address when talking to an adult.

In the U.S. it was common to call a black man 'boy', regardless of his age.
Women are often called 'girls' or 'ladies' by both men and women. I don't
know about you or others on this newsgroup but I find 'ladies' to be as
offensive as 'girl' when referring to a women.

Of course, if language can be used to diminish the worth of a person, then
economically and politically that person will lose, if for no other reason
than society dosen't treat children equally.

Joe Szalai

On 14 Jan 96, d.A., i.e. ibokor > wrote:

>>I would seriously argue that there are many countries in Europe with a
>>much better record of minority treatment than Romania.  Switzerland,
>>Italy, Holland, Spain come to mind.

>You should perhaps look into at least Switzerland and Spain more carefully.
>Ask a few questions about how the Swiss population and authorities have
>treated "das fahrende Volk", as an example.
>Ask a few question about the "difficulties" and civil disturbances in,
>say, Andalucia or the prohibition for so long of the Catalonian
>language, etc. in Spain.

Yes indeed. Let's look at Spain "carefully". The first step would be
be to read:

        The Catalan Statute of Autonomy
        Generalitat de Catalunya
        Departament de la Presidencia
        March, 1993

Some brief excerpts:

"In the process of regaining their democratic freedom the people of
Catalonia also recover their institutions of self-government.

Catalonia, exercising the right to self-government which the
Constitution recognizes and guarantees to all nationalities and
regions of which Spain is composed, manifests its desire to
constitute a Self-Governing-Community.

....

Article 3

1. The language proper to Catalonia is Catalan.

2. Catalan is the official language of Catalonia, as is Castilian, the
official language of the whole of the Spanish State.

3. The "Generalitat" shall guarantee normal and official use of both
languages, adopting all measures necessary to ensure they are known, and
creating those conditions which shall make possible their full equality
with regard to the duties and rights of the citizens of Catalonia.

Article 4

The Catalan flag is the traditional one of four red stripes on a yellow
background.

....

Article 13

1. The "Generalitat" may set up an Autonomous Police Force within the
framework of this Statute.....

......"


Switzerland is also an excellent example. Switzerland has four (4)
official languages and the government protects and furthers (!) the
interests of its minorities. Recently, Prof Chasper Pult, President
of the Lia Rumantscha, representing the Raeto-Romansch minority
of Switzerland spoke at the conference "Promoting European Security
and Integration: The Role of National Minorities" in the US House of
Representatives' foreign relations hearing room. He passed around in
the audience his passport and a Swiss banknote to demonstrate that
one of the languages on these documents is Romansch, even though less
than one percent (!!) of the population of Switzerland belongs to this
group. He pointed out that during the first three years of school,
children of this ethnic group learn the Romansch language. The Swiss
Federation allows the sharing of power between the cantons (i.e.
counties) and the central government, leading to effective protection
of national minorities. This results in the demonstrated fact that
minorities retain their identity without harboring exclusivist sentiments.

Contrast this with the situation in Slovakia with the roughly 10%
ethnic Hungarians or Romania, where Hungarians, Saxons, Romani make up
in excess of 23% of the population. In both of these countries,
repressive, anti-minority legislation was recently enacted.

Thus, as a.D. suggests "looking" can be very educational. It does not
take long to realize that advocates of the unitary state nonsense can
not, in light of the fact that in Europe there are 70 different peoples
but only 36 states with more than half a million inhabitants, close
their eyes to reality and not suffer the consequences. (In Europe there
are at least 250 national or ethnic minorities with over one hundred
million persons which corresponds to one seventh of the 750 million
Europeans.)

As the Federal Union of European Nationalitiea (FUEN) recently stated:

"States are products of human society. They exist for the people and not
vice versa. At least since the triumphant advance of democracy, this
principle can claim general validity. Therefore states have to adapt to
the necessities of the people. Polyethnic populations necessitate
multinational states. This insight is the indispensible prerequisite for
the reform of the states, with the aim to overcome, through integration,
national conflicts between ethnically heterogeneous parts of populations
of different sizes, in order to arrive at a national partnership which
alone can guarantee the necessary solidarity and loyalty of all with all
and the necessary stability of long-lasting peace."

The message has not gotten through to the rulers in Bratislava or
Bucaresti. Time is not on their side.

CSABA K. ZOLTANI

At 06:55 PM 1/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:27 AM 1/24/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>Jim, I don't think that we will see eye to eye on this subject.
>>
>>>My original note was not intended to be a personal attack.  I have not=20
>>>found your writings, =C9va, at all bitchy (thus far).
>>
>>I have objections to the word "bitchy" in the first place, and I must say=
 I
>>am surprised that you think the way you do.=20
>
>I'm not!  It's all part of Jim's world view. =20
>
>Eva, since you share most of his views, I'm surprised that you're=
 surprised.
>And if you dig long enough you'll find yourself surprised over and over
>again.  But then I only have outdated, utopian, and silly ideas to offer.
>
>Joe Szalai

Well, it is rather presumptious of you to make great pronouncement on my
views and in what way they are identical to those of Jim Doepp. Considering
that you have joined this group only a few weeks ago, and I nowhere
expressed any opinion on any of Jim Doepp's writings, I think that you tend
to jump to conclusions. To the best of my recollectionn, Jim Doepp wrote a
longish piece about the virtues of the Antall government and although I
didn't make any comments I didn't agree with a number of his points. If you
think that not supporting your utopistic views on socialism can be equated
with either conservatism, or worse, right-wing mentality, you are wrong! Too
bad that your Hungarian is not good enough to read the Forum. There you
would find out that I am a dangerous liberal!

Eva Balogh

At 06:55 PM 1/24/96 -0500, you wrote:

>>It is interesting that you think I would say that I had no trouble in being
>>a woman, like Maggie Thatcher.  I am not a Maggie Thatcher, although I
>>admire her tremendously for her gumption and willingness to be forthright,
>>a rare commodity in politicians.
>
Joe Szalai's answer:
>Hitler had it too.  I see this as an all too common, yet dangerous argument.
>Right wing politicians are having a field day dismantling social safety nets
>that were developed during this century.  And they're getting away with it
>because many people hold gumption and forthrightness to be more important
>than social programmes.

Oh, for Pete's sake. To compare Margaret Thatcher to Hitler? Don't you think
that you are overdoing it a bit? Hitler's sin wasn't exactly the
"dismantling social safety nets that were developed during this century." I
suggest that you do a little more reading on the subject.


Eva Balogh

On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> >I do think a discussion of feminist ideas is relevant to a general forum on
> >Hungary, because Hungary is dealing with the same problems in society that
> >we are dealing with here in North America.  And, even though these issues
> >may be boring to some people, it is important that they should be >discussed
.
>
> The number of responses to this issue seems to indicate that a lot of people
> do not find this issue boring.

YES! Even though some people will sayt hat we have no right putting our
values on a society, through communications, email, travel, those mix all
the time. Thus, we should talk about it. We can understand that things
will not get better overnight there or in our own backyards (Hey, coming
from the suth, I know this all too well), but that does not prevent
talking about it.

>
> >I hate to say it, but what about all this discussion about sports?  Isn't
> >there a forum where all the guys should go who want to discuss sports?
>
> Yes there is such a forum.  Unfortunately, for a lot of men that forum is
> called 'the world'.  They just love to play with, or watch other guys play
> with, balls.
J. Szlai,
        Isn't that a little unfair. Women play sports too ;-)

Darren Purcell

> Then there is that traditional range of postgraduate QUALIFICATIONS.  In
> Hungary, there have been three doctoral qualifications: the 'small' or
> university-level doctor, the 'candidate' and the 'doctor of sciences'.  The
> latter two used to be awarded by the Academy of Sciences, while first used to
> be the domain of individual universities.  For the university doctoral degree
,
> a thesis of around 30,000 words was required, pretty well like a thesis-only
> Masters in the English tradition.  Requirements for the candidate and doctor
> of sciences were longer theses, language exams and documented scientific
> achievement.  The UK/US/Australia/etc. PhD is closest to the Candidate Degree
.
> While this system was an exact copy of the Soviet one, I understand that the
> German regime is also different from that of Anglo-Celtic countries.
George Antony cites the above as the Hungarian system today.

As of 1995, there is a new setup, one that makes me see red though.
Doctorates are being given in Hungary now, granting a Ph.D in only 1.-2
years after the completion of the diplom. Albeit, everyone claims that
the first un9versity degree is equivalent to teh masters in the US, I
have seen what geography students have to learn and I am quite sorry,
that ain't a Ph.D from any top 20 geography school in the US, or I'll
wager Britain, Australia, or Ireland, Germany, etc.

Of course, part of this is related to standardizatio with 'western'
systmes of education so that some leverl of comparability is there.
However, I have read a couple of the 'dissertations' and they are not
quite theoretical enough to pass a Ph.D exam here. I am not saying this
is not a bad idea, but it still needs a little work.

Please, someone over there now feel free to talk about this topic,
because this was going on as I left, and could have changed immensely,
perhaps James Doeepp could shed some light being in Miskolc?

Darren Purcell

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Doepp James wrote:

> A couple of comments on the discussion of feminism:

SNIP

> 2.  Joe is right when he says that the question has to do with=20
> socialism.  Only he's on the wrong side.  Discrimination based on gender=
=20
> is likely to DECREASE with free markets, because discrimination is=20
> expensive.  If there are women willing to do a job at the same cost as=20
> men, and firms discriminate against the women, the price of labour in the=
=20
> male labour market will go up (greater demand for male labour means=20
> higher price of male labour.)  The firms that are market-conscious and=20
> wish to improve their competing ability will hire women, who are willing=
=20
> to do the job at a lower cost (since the cost of male labour has gone=20
> up).  Those firms which do not do so will lose out.  As competition=20
> increases, and firms realise there are gains to be made by hiring women,=
=20
> the price of female labour will also go up.

Jim, could you point out a few countries where this happens? I can't help=
=20
but think of the Thrid World where the answer for keeping NIKE shoes=20
cheap is to simply hire chearpe girls (real girls, not the diminuitively=20
created) to do the work.=20
And after the wages go up for women, then who gets hired? Those willing=20
to work part-time with no benefits. But under todays's capitalist=20
economy, this process happens faster and faster. So, and not being a=20
jerk, please point out a few "real life examples" where this has happened=
=20
and how this has lasted.

>=20
>=20
> 3.  Balogh =C9va may find me "insensitive" for using the word "bitchy". =
=20
> "Bitchy" is not "politically correct".  A great problem with feminism=20
> today is that it has become caught up in the wave of "political=20
> correctness", which has set up standards for proper speech and writing=20
> that are downright dictatorial.=20

So, I can call you bastardly, since that is usually applied to Males, or=20
can I say penis (or your own faul word of choice?)-ly?. PC is not all on=20
standards of speech, but it does have something to say about the meanings=
=20
you imply in those words. There are all sorts of words for men in general=
=20
that I really don't like to hear. (I will go into examples privately if=20
you so desire, but I think we are all odl enough to think of some easily)


>=20
> 5.  The psychological, emotional and physiological differences between=20
> the sexes are there, and are not going to go away.  In recognition of thi=
s,=20
> the way I treat a woman and the way I treat a man are different.  In many=
 ways=20
> I have a higher respect for women than for men.  In others, the situation=
=20
> is reversed.
 Out of curiousity, care to give us some concrete examples?

PS. Do you have any insights on the Ph.D system in Hungary now?=20

>=20
> James D. Doepp
> University of Miskolc (Hungary)
> Department of Economic Theory
>=20
>=20
> "...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the=20
> soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,=20
> and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with=20
> understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -=20
> this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
> one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and=20
> pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what=20
> he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate=20
> this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."
>=20
> Plato, Laws II
>=20
> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>=20

Hali,

Na latod!!

I couldn't agree any more.
____________________________
Csaba wrote:

As the Federal Union of European Nationalitiea (FUEN) recently stated:

"States are products of human society. They exist for the people and not
vice versa. At least since the triumphant advance of democracy, this
principle can claim general validity. Therefore states have to adapt to
the necessities of the people. Polyethnic populations necessitate
multinational states. This insight is the indispensible prerequisite for
the reform of the states, with the aim to overcome, through integration,
national conflicts between ethnically heterogeneous parts of populations
of different sizes, in order to arrive at a national partnership which
alone can guarantee the necessary solidarity and loyalty of all with all
and the necessary stability of long-lasting peace."

The message has not gotten through to the rulers in Bratislava or
Bucaresti. Time is not on their side.
______________________________

In addition to this. The State Dept. of the United States back in 1944 knew
about what kind of mess would result by carving up Central Europe, like
nagymama's diszno in the winter, and stated this:

"An ideal solution lies in the evolution of a genuine multi-national or
un-national state, which citizenship is as separate from nationality as it is
from religion. It is doubtful that any solution can be made to work unless it
is accompanied by the development of democratic governments, mutual tolerance
and constitutional safeguards as well as judicial and administrative practices
which will place all citizens on a footing of equality before the law, give
them equal and civil political rights, and thereby lay the foundation for
harmonious cooperation with the State."

No truer words have been spoken.

That's why we can't let these bastards Funar and Meciar get an upper hand on
all of this. They can talk the talk and kiss the ass of an EU High Chairman on
Ethnic Minorities and tell him that relations between their particular
government and people couldn't be better (after signing ridiculous language
laws that ban the use of any other language, except their own, but yet have
western goods advertised blatantly, everywhere. Catch 22??). The idiotic
Hungarian government wants to continue talk on the treaty, now!! What a bunch
of sell-outs!!! Anything to get Hungary into the EU. The whole stinkin' lot of
those geezers who call themselves "politicians" in Hungary should be raped by
the Moor's and fed to the jackals. Of course, we shouldn't hold in high regard
the same crew who mananged to triple or quadruple the debt in 7years, with
solutions like making automobile drivers pay 900Ft + to ride on a 47km stretch
of highway,  whereas Kadar Jancsi Baci managed took 34 years to get to a
sizeable, but yet somewhat payable debt. So, we aren't dealing with the
greatest Hungarian political minds, here.


Ennyi

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi

You wrote:

>So, I can call you bastardly, since that is usually applied to Males, or
>can I say penis (or your own faul word of choice?)-ly?.

I guess if you want to say something which is equivalent of the "bitchy"
for males, it would be the "macho".

>PC is not all on standards of speech, but it does have something to say about
>the meanings you imply in those words.

Or rather those imply in them who listen to them.

Janos

Dear Gabi:
I haven't written recently because I somehow misplaced your e-mail
address. Please send me a post so I can refile it.
Sam Stowe

At 09:51 AM 1/25/96 -0500,  Doepp James wrote:

>A couple of comments on the discussion of feminism:

>3.  Balogh =C9va may find me "insensitive" for using the word "bitchy". =20
>"Bitchy" is not "politically correct".  A great problem with feminism=20
>today is that it has become caught up in the wave of "political=20
>correctness", which has set up standards for proper speech and writing=20
>that are downright dictatorial.=20

Get off it Jim.  Being opposed to 'political correctness' is the
'politically correct' attitude of the '90s for those men who are starting to
feel the heat.
 =20
What part of 'political correctness' are you opposed to Jim?  Do you want to
call women 'girls'?  How about calling them 'chicks', 'cunts', or 'dames'?
Would you be happy if you could call gay men 'queers', 'fags', or
'cocksuckers'?  And what about East Indians?  Would you feel less restrained
if you could just call them 'pakis'?   And do you miss the good old days
when you could call African Americans 'niggers'? =20

I am not suggesting that you use any of the above terms.  After all, you are
an educated man.  However, if you are going to accuse feminists, or anyone
else for that matter, of using language in a dictatorial way, you had better
be prepared to indicate which words you have a problem with and why.
Otherwise get off the 'anti-politically correct' band wagon.

Joe Szalai=20

At 12:32 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>Considering that you have joined this group only a few weeks ago, and I
>nowhere expressed any opinion on any of Jim Doepp's writings, I think that
>you tend to jump to conclusions.

I tend to think that you have a selective memory.  But don't we all?  Do you
remember that thread on 'Hunglish' last spring.  Well, I started that
thread.  Also I've been reading this list since it first became available.
It's just that I've had more time to make postings this past year.

As for jumping to conclusions, you're as good at that as I am.  I raise
certain social issues and you conclude that I'm a socialist.  Jumping to
conclusions is not necessarily a bad thing.  If someone called you a 'girl'
or a 'chick' I would conclude that that person is sexist.  I would be
shocked if I discovered that they had pro-feminist views.  Life's not like
that and therefore I'm seldom shocked.

>Too bad that your Hungarian is not good enough to read the Forum. There you
>would find out that I am a dangerous liberal!

Some people would conclude that all liberals are dangerous.  As for me, I'm
quite content to be a dangerous utopian on this group.  It suits my
oxymoronic personality.

Joe Szalai

At 12:40 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>Oh, for Pete's sake. To compare Margaret Thatcher to Hitler? Don't you
>think that you are overdoing it a bit? Hitler's sin wasn't exactly the
>"dismantling social safety nets that were developed during this century." I
>suggest that you do a little more reading on the subject.

I was comparing Thatcher's and Hitler's 'gumption and willingness to be
forthright'.  I suppose you would have been happier if I included all the
Soviet leaders.  I didn't because I didn't think they were forthright.
Anyway, I was being critical of people who view gumption and forthrightness
as virtues, regardless of the message.

Joe Szalai

To Mr. Danfords,

Somewhere in the middle of your article you state that you don't want to be
obnoxious. My God, what would have happened if you tried! You managed to get
very obnoxious without any effort whatsoever.

You demand:

>1) - Please advise us all, as to the frequency of ur visit(s) to Hungary
>     during the past ten years
>2) - Please indicate the scope of the people you are exposed to while
>     there (by this I do mean "classes")
>3) - Please clearly relay, the exact source of your "statistics"

I am not advising; I am not indicating, and I am not relaying! Is that
understood?

>My experience with Hungarians, ranges from the ages of 6 mos -  89+.
>Obviously, this entails several generations worth of mentalities.  They
>are as follows:
>
>Before the crack of dawn, . . . . etc. etc. ad nauseam

What an idyllic picture--out of a picture book.

As opposed to your vast "hands on experiences," my humble self (with above
average intelligence, mind you, to use your your charming words) I am more
inclined toward some knowledge of the country's history and the studies of
those busy Hungarian sociologists. It might be presumptious of me but I
think I know a fair amount of both.

And now you can go back to that idyllic country and fetch the zsemle in the
morning for the whole family!

Eva Balogh

At 02:47 PM 1/25/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:

>I just received an issue of HVG which seems to tackle the
>issue, I'll let you know, when I have time to read it,
>perhaps Eva Balogh will comment on it by then.
>
Yes, Eva, I saw it because it is on the cover page--Title: Uj viszony = New
relationship but because of my change of internet provider I spent hours on
installing software and learn the new programs--I had no time yet to read
it. Why don't you comment on it?

Eva Balogh

P.S. By the way, I fully agree with Eva Durant: our hands-on observer must
have observed some very privileged woman--not the ordinary run-of-the-mill
professional or working-class woman.

At 12:01 AM 1/25/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:

>So?  Today people believe this, and tomorrow, they'll believe that.  If
>you've read Cecilia Fabos-Becker's posts today you might have noticed that
>she worked for McGoverns campaign, and today she is an active member of the
>Republican party.  Were her views correct then and wrong today, or vice
>versa?

Her change of political views is much more common then the other way around!
So, if you think that members of this list, as the years go by, will become
flaming socialists I think you are wrong.

Eva Balogh

At 11:32 AM 1/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:09 AM 1/25/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>First of all, the word "girl" to describe an adult woman--and most of us on
>>this list are between forty and sixty--is degrading. I am sure that you no
>>longer consider yourself a "boy." Well, I no longer consider myself a
>>"girl." I was a girl until about the age of 18 and, unfortunately, that was
>>a long time ago.
>
>In a futile attempt to disguise their contempt, racists and sexists and
>bigots of all kind often use the diminutive and/or pseudo-affectionate form
>of address when talking to an adult.
>
>In the U.S. it was common to call a black man 'boy', regardless of his age.
>Women are often called 'girls' or 'ladies' by both men and women. I don't
>know about you or others on this newsgroup but I find 'ladies' to be as
>offensive as 'girl' when referring to a women.
>
>Of course, if language can be used to diminish the worth of a person, then
>economically and politically that person will lose, if for no other reason
>than society dosen't treat children equally.
>
>Joe Szalai
>

My Golly, there must be something wrong with me today. I agree with every
you say.

Eva Balogh

What is the official definition of the 'sexist'? Can a women be 'sexist' or
this is a privilege of men only?

Janos

At 03:47 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:

>I tend to think that you have a selective memory.  But don't we all?  Do you
>remember that thread on 'Hunglish' last spring.  Well, I started that
>thread.  Also I've been reading this list since it first became available.
>It's just that I've had more time to make postings this past year.

Well, it wasn't that memorable.

Eva Balogh

Well, I was waiting for a while to see how the folks react to this 'vowels
 story'.
Also, Mr.Kornai's intention was not clear to me. Was it a test, or only a joke?
And with whom he was joking, with the American soldiers or the Bosnian peoples?
And the title, why is about time? Not a month ago, or a year ago? Anyway I don'
t
care. But why didn't those people who feels the words 'ladies' and 'girls'
 offensive
and put emphasise on PC, protest against such jokes:

>      Citizens of Grzny and Sjlbvdnzv eagerly await the arrival of the
> vowels.
>
> "My God, I do not think we can last another day," Trszg Grzdnjkln, 44,
> said. "I have six children and none of them has a name that is
> understandable to me or to anyone else.  Mr. Clinton, please send my poor,
> wretched family just one 'E.' Please."

I doubt that a bosnian or serb would laugh on this. Or maybe the PC is only
an american internal affair and not valid for foreigners?

Janos

Dear Joe Szalai:

Hello there.  Glad you read my tomes and didn't think to ill of them.

At 12:01 AM 1/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>It's presumptuous to use "we".
>
>>Mind you, I have been on this list for two years, and as far as I know
>>there have been only two ardent believers in utopistic socialism: you and
>>Eva Durant. Everybody else thought that Marx's utopia is nothing more than
>>a utopia.
>
>So?  Today people believe this, and tomorrow, they'll believe that.  If
>you've read Cecilia Fabos-Becker's posts today you might have noticed that
>she worked for McGoverns campaign, and today she is an active member of the
>Republican party.  Were her views correct then and wrong today, or vice
>versa?  Having a lot of people believing the same thing that you do does not
>make it right or correct.
>

True, true.  In my case my beliefs have evolved somewhat, but not changed in
_basic_ elements.  However, somewhere along the line the Democratic party
sure did and perverted a lot of good stuff.  It isn't the same animal it was
in 1971-78, by a long country mile.  I've got the original notes, and
platforms to prove it.

Quick example: my district literally created the term "affirmative action"
and the first programs.  None of the first dozen platform planks resulting
from the caucuses involved hiring quotas.  The emphasis was on improving
education to allow applicants for colleges and work to meet existing
standards.  We favored both changes in child education, and creation of
adult education programs to remedy deficiencies in education among adults.
We also favored forms of paid-"apprenticeship" to build needed experience.
Look at where the Democrats headed after about 1978 with all this, and you
can see why many former McGovern people are now Republicans.  This is just
one example of one issue, there have been many similar situations.

It's also not that we think that the Republican party is all that great,
either.  Mostly, because the Republican party has been out of power for so
long in Congress, they have shown greater willingness, recently to be more
inclusive and listen to some new ideas.  I have no doubt that won't last
forever any more than it did for the Democrats, should the Republicans hold
control of Congress for more than about 12 years.

The best any of us can do is decide what values are most important to us for
self-respect and respect of others, and caring for human needs--and the rest
of the planet.  If we truly believe in citizenship, responsibility to one
another and the planet, then we simply have to find the best means, whatever
it may be at any given time to exercise that responsibility.  It doesn't
mean that the means--the reflections of ours and other peoples choices--is
going to always be the same.  My husband still tells me I'm far too generous
to others with my money, time, efforts, etc.--no matter what party in which
I'm temporarily a member.  He's still a Democrat--barely, but his beliefs
and trust have been shaken also.




>It's rather odd but if I ever thought that my views or ideas represented the
>mainstream I would feel that I've betrayed myself.  It would be like
>forfeiting your voice.  Sorry if my 'herd instincts' are less than what you
>feel comfortable with.

It's always best "to thine ownself be true."  Apologies to Will Shakespeare,
or whomever.  When everyone else has left the room, we always have our
selves with whom to live to answer.  It's a little hard to escape our selves.

I think you are a good guy, Joe.  God bless you (if you would like God to).

Respectfully and sincerely,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker

3273 B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA  95148
tel.& fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Georg Antony:

04:30 PM 1/25/96 +1000, you wrote:
>There are a few areas of distinct cultural difference between the Anglo-Celtic
>world and Central Europe.  It took me a while to wake up to them after moving
>to Australia, and I have a feeling that many of the Hungay list's non-Hungaria
n
>readers may not be aware of these differences.

Anglo-Celtic world?  I'm glad the Anglo-Saxon-Normans and Celtic peoples get
along so well in Australia, and to a lesser degree Canada, but it
unfortunately isn't so in very large segments of the U.S. and in Ireland and
Scotland.  There is still an awful lot of mistrust of Anglo-Saxon-Normans in
these other areas, and not as much intermarriage as might be wished.  While
the situation is not universal, it is much more widespread than ordinarily
thought.  A lot of it is such an old habit, it is also more nearly
subconscious rather than conscious.  It simply exists.

It goes back to a few unpleasant experiences that formed much of the early
U.S. history.  While that might seem strange to most people who think of the
U.S. as a place with no respect for history or no sense of ethnic historical
identity, in reality there are sections of the U.S. that do hold these
things--particularly the South.

To quote a cousin of mine when I was rather surprised by this, and asked an
explanation:  "Life generally moves more slowly here.  The south is still
primarily agricultural and small town.  The same families have lived in the
same places for generations.  Thus, in the family memories, the Civil War
was just yesterday, and the Revolution the day before."

The Celtic Americans came to be as a result of the proscriptions and
deportations of the Presbyters (Presbyterians), the Jacobites, the Highland
Clearances, and the English invasion/conquest Great Hunger (Ireland)--all
this before 1850.  Then during the American revolution the English led
Tories exhibited their greatest cruelties toward the rural and frontier
Scots and Scot-Irish.  They were led by Cornwallis's pet, Banastre Tarleton
(nicknamed something else that sounded similar to his first name, by his
victims), who boasted to his fellow officers as he volunteered to help
subdue "the rebellious rabble", that he intended "to go down in history as
the English officer who had killed more men and bedded more women than any
other officer in history."  He wasn't too particular about how he did
either.  Look up what he did at Waxhaws Ridge (Buford Regiment Massacre) and
the Kingstree area plantations in South Carolina.

Then there was the small matter of the English burning Washington DC--and
the White House--in the War of 1812--after kidnapping hundreds of young
American males and putting them on ships to fight the French.  By the way,
even top English officers were appalled by what their own fellow officers
did in the Washington DC area.  Prior to this, though, the English had  even
kidnapped the relatives of our diplomats and members of Congress for
"impressment."

In the course of that mess called the "war," they had also allied themselves
with first the Shawnee, then the Creek nations, whom were about as
particular in how they conducted war as Banastre Tarleton.  Read Alan
Eckert's books on this period.  Don't eat anything before you do.  This is
not stuff for weak stomachs.  There was great cruelty on both sides that
simply escalated for a time until more humane and rational leaders prevailed
on both sides.

I don't think Australians, or Canadians,  ever experienced what Americans
did courtesy of the Anglo-Saxon-Normans.  And abuse didn't stop in 1814.
Many Southerners still feel a sense of betrayal for England's broken promise
to help them in the Civil War. First the English formally allied themselves
with the South, accepted a large amount of cotton and other commodities,
then backed out of most promises to send the Southerners weapons and other
needed manufactured items, due to Northern pressure.  They negotiated
treaties and accepted goods with the treaties, but I don't think they ever
really signed more than one or two.  Yet, they strung the poor Southerners
negotiating the treaties--and running blockades to do so, along.  It may
have ultimately been right to not back the South, but it was wrong to have
ever promised to do so in the first place--and accept resources and goods
without any repayment--or return of what could be returned.  Wouldn't you agree
?

Finally there was the other little matter called World War I.  English
officials lied and deliberately manipulated the U.S. into that war as
English proxies.  While this combined with some real German stupidity, the
German stupidity didn't generally seem to be as constant and frequent as the
English propaganda and other deceptive and dishonest activities.  The
behavior of the English at Versailles, and what General Bandholz and many
others testified to Woodrow Wilson and others, as to the behavior of the
English and their allies throughout Austria-Hungary, the deceptions and lies
concerning the state of the minorities, etc. all contributed to a general
feeling that the U.S. had been duped and used by the English to further
selfish English aims--and that many innocent people had undeservedly
suffered.  The Holocaust Museum and many, many books and articles documents
this situation, and the feelings of mistrust of England that lasted well
into World War II.  It is widely known that one of the primary reasons the
U.S. was so shamefully slow to enter World War II, and help the Jews, is
because so many officials no longer trusted anything the English said.


Since then, there have also been some interesting business and financial
dealings--like the takeover of several fruit juice companies by English food
companies followed by debasement of the products.  The containers and labels
are largely the same, and the they are even filled with 100% fruit
juice--but juice which has been so overprocessed, and not refortified or
restored as to have literally no vitamins left, and much less, if any
minerals.  One might as well be drinking colored sugar-water.  Yet this is
advertised as a "wholesome beverage for children."

I admit to having some less than wonderful experiences with English, also,
however, there are good and bad individuals in all nations.  I hope for the
best, brace myself and try to be extra observant in case of the worst, and
extend my hand anyway.  I just keep trying to work to make things better,
despite the occasional differences of opinion and perspective. Things aren't
going to get any better with general ostracism of any people.  Right?

>
>One of the first things that struck me in Australia was the almost total lack
>of pomposity in academic circles.  Experience with academics from other Anglo-
>Celtic countries, and to a lesser extent with Germans, has convinced me that
>the difference is broader than a mere Australia-Hungary dichotomy.

First of all, I would agree that degreed persons below a PhD, and "non-Ivy
League" degreed persons, don't _generally_ exhibit much pomposity in the
U.S..  However, PhD's are another matter, and Lord help you if you ever have
to spend much time in Washington DC among the "Ivy League" Brahmins of
mostly English surnames, who comprise most Congressional aides and members
of "research institutions."  After our last trip to DC involving dealing
with a couple of hundred of them in over 70 offices, some local activists
and I were noting how much they all began to look and sound alike and how
much anti-nausea and antacid medicine we were beginning to buy.  When we
compared notes, we wondered if we should put a recommendation for that stuff
as part of a general travel kit for activists who do not visit often enough
to become acclimated and immune to Washington DC. ;-)
>
>As far as academic pomposity is concerned, it is hardly a Hungarian speciality
.
>Many of you may have encountered proper German addressation in correspondance
>such as 'Herr Professor Dr. Dr. Dummkopf'.  Apart from finding it a tad
>pretentious that one should use all these titles rather than just the 'highest
'
>one, English speakers would assume that the person in question, in addition to
>being a man, has two PhDs and a professorial chair.
>
>But it is not necessarily so.
>
>In Hungary, and I presume in Germany too, heads of academic departments are
>routinely called Professor, even without having a chair.
>
>In the Central-European tradition, doctoral TITLES extend beyond those holding
>medical degrees, to plain graduates from law or veterinary courses.  (In Latin
>America, all university graduates are courteously addressed as doctor, but tha
t
>is for another day.)

Interesting discussion, here.  Perhaps I can shed a little light.  The
situation in Hungary, Germany and the Latin American countries, is more
similar than dissimilar, according to a Spanish teacher of mine many years
ago.  (We studied the Habsburg empire from that perspective awhile.)  It has
to do with the social manners once established by the old empire that ruled
both areas. The emphasis was on a flattering politeness to gain cooperation.
Thus, when in doubt as to the degree of a person's education, to avoid
giving an insult, assume the highest degree and address the person
accordingly.  We were told to do the same with military titles or police
titles, too.  The military or police officer's uniform might have a lot of
braid and such at even a fairly low level, and then again, maybe not. It was
best to assume a higher rank and address that person accordingly also, if
you weren't absolutely sure of the rank. Military and police officials were
believed to be even more inclined to be insulted if not addressed by their
real rank--or higher.

Although Germany is nominally a "different culture" due to language and
religion, it shared the German language with Austria--also a large part of
the Habsburg empire.  Germany also did not unify until quite late, thus, a
large part of its manners were initially borrowed from a German-speaking
Austria to whom the northerners often looked for inspiration as a
temporarily more successful Germanic people.

In 1974, when my husband and I first visited Germany, his employer who was
paying for the trip brought in a consultant to advise us how to
behave--especially if we wanted the best service and assistance.  One of the
things she told us was to dress very well.  The waiters and salesclerks and
such were always extra attentive of those they thought in the "rank" of
"Barons" or higher.  We would know if we were successful, she said, if the
gentlemen in our party were addressed as "Herr Baron."  She was right,
unfortunately.

I don't know if it is still that way since our last trip to Europe,
together.  My husband has never been happy with the situation, but he
admitted it did work.  Being addressed as "Herr Baron" never sat well (more
like, really _grated_) with his Democratic-Farmer-Labor party background,
however, and he tends to avoid visiting Germany now, just in case.  His more
recent business encounters with Germans visiting this country haven't been
real encouraging.

>
>Then there is that traditional range of postgraduate QUALIFICATIONS.  In
>Hungary, there have been three doctoral qualifications: the 'small' or
>university-level doctor, the 'candidate' and the 'doctor of sciences'.  The
>latter two used to be awarded by the Academy of Sciences, while first used to
>be the domain of individual universities.  For the university doctoral degree,
>a thesis of around 30,000 words was required, pretty well like a thesis-only
>Masters in the English tradition.  Requirements for the candidate and doctor
>of sciences were longer theses, language exams and documented scientific
>achievement.  The UK/US/Australia/etc. PhD is closest to the Candidate Degree.
>While this system was an exact copy of the Soviet one, I understand that the
>German regime is also different from that of Anglo-Celtic countries.
>
The Soviet regimes copied the German, not the other way around.  This was
told to me by Soviet Russians, and other East Central Europeans.  One would
think they above all would know these things.  Hmmm?

>Hence, our Herr Professor Dr. Dr. Dummkopf may be just a vet with what would
>pass for a Masters in English-speaking countries, acting as head of department
.
>
>He is most likely a bloke, though.

Cute, cute!  Have a nice day. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
>

Respectfully and sincerely (but don't overlook the humor and smileys, please)

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker

3273 B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA  95148
tel.& fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Eva, et al:

At 01:29 PM 1/25/96 +0100, you wrote:
>So the gist of it: there were always rich and poor peaople
>in every society, and if you are balancing cleverly, you can
>go on like that forever. Is this what you're saying?
>(You're either a good teacher (if I understood you)
>or a good politician (if I didn't)...)

Thank you for the kind words.  I've done some specialized tutoring, but I
hope I've been more of a statesperson--or better yet a "people-person" than
a mere politician.  Whatever diplomacy I have finally achieved is the result
of years of hard work--mistakes and successes, and hopefully learning a
little from both.  I still blush when I think of some of the mistakes, along
the way, and think I have yet a lot to learn.

Regarding "there were always rich and poor."  Yes pretty much.  To quote an
old song, "it's been going on for 10,000 years."  (The Great Mandella by
Peter, Paul and Mary.--Good grief, how I'm dating myself!)

Actually, the anthropologists were teaching this about 20 years ago in the
classes I experienced.  It's not an original thought or observation.  In
fact, even 2,000 years ago, a much wiser person than I even expressed it by
saying, "The poor are always with us."  (But, no, I'm not _that_ old to have
heard that first hand!)

The problems are these:  It is statistically and historically proveable that
there are always many, many more followers than leaders--and people always
make their own choice whether to follow or lead.  It doesn't matter what
kind of government is set up, a few people will always emerge to do most of
the governing and make most of the policies.  Add to this the equally
proveable (scientific observation, experimentation, etc.) fact that people
don't like change, and will only do so when it is more uncomfortable for
them to stay as they are than to change, and then will only make the most
minimal amount of change to place themselves in a "comfort zone" again,
because they fear the unknown.  Real Pioneers and explorers are a minority
of all populations.  People who have nothing, also have nothing to lose.
People who have something, if they feel it is substantial in comparison to
what they see others owning around them, are less likely to want to risk
losing what they have.  The problem in most third world countries is too
large a number of the people have very, very little--and they live within a
short distance of people who have infinitely more.

>
>I don't think you can call a country socialist, just because
>most of transport/energy/ etc was nationalised. The purpose
>is usually 1/ to supply cheap energy/infrastructure/raw materials
>              to the ailing private sector;
>           2/ to channel funds to the elite olegarchia.

It isn't just the transport/energy that was socialized.  I only mentioned a
couple of examples.  The banks were nationalized until quite recently also,
as just one more single "for instance," but _all_ investments were directed
through these, and other more direct government financial institutions.  If
you didn't have the "guanxi" to use a Chinese term with the bank officers,
you didn't get investment.  They could tell one to do whatever they wanted
and skim besides.  Bank of America and Citibank didn't have branch offices
and make loans and investments in these countries until the last few years.
At the RETSIE convention, in April, 1995, the BofA vice-president was still
describing in talks "the new operations" in Mexico.  Mexico and Indonesia
both have "privatization programs" because of the extent of what did, and
still, exists, though it is being reduced.
>
>I think Indonasia only "enjoyed" the support of the USSR until
>the bloody putch of Suharto, who due to his massive purchase
>of arms is in the good book of all haroic fighters of democracy
>in the US/West establishment, they can even overrun others
>such as East-Timor with much more human suffering than Quwait
>affair ever suggested... but that is an other story.
>
The U.S. also once thought "Uncle Joe" was great too.  It just depends upon
the balancing act whatever is running DC, whenever, wants to do.  The
realities of what either Suharto or Stalin claimed as they took power, and
created institutions have little bearing on oh-so-flexible DC exigencies,
and sometimes equally flexible Moscow or Beijing (or any other capitol of a
"power).  East Timor is terrible, but I rather suspect the Portuguese who
originally settled there didn't exactly do a friendly little modern business
deal for a land purchase, either.

What goes around comes around, I guess. It's never right, and all one can do
is try to stop the current wrong and try to help people get over some
seriously hurt feelings and avoid a further cycle of revenge.  Much easier
said than done.

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker

3273 B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA, 95148
tel. & fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: .


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Mr. Stowewrite and friends:

At 06:43 AM 1/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >,  (John
>P. Pagano) writes:
>
>>And now, after all the insane, ping-ponging attacks and peripheral
>>discussions about the subtexts in "The Usual Suspects" -- sincere thanks
>>yous to Doug and Sam for contributing to both these threads -- I have
>>finally been told by a "real" Turk (the father of a friend) that "Soze"
>>is the Turkish word for "word" in the dative case.
>>
>>Just thought I should round off the discussion.

>"He's working for Keyser Soze, a Hungarian crime lord whose homicidal
>ferocity has made him a figure of terrifying legend." -- Jack Kroll;
>"Crooks, Creeps and Cons;" Newsweek; August 28, 1995.
>
>"`Keyser Soze,' rasps the burn victim in the hospital, and the cops around
>him don't understand what he's saying. Slowly, the words begin to make
>sense: other people have heard of Soze -- the Hungarian warlord who
>murdered his own children, who came to America, who murders anyone who
>displeases him, or anyone he pleases." -- Anthony Lake; "The Big Roundup;"
>New Yorker; August 14, 1995.

Oh dear, is Anthony Lake up to his tricks again?  After he made a few
puzzling comments about Hungarians and made a rather clumsy attempt to
divide the Hungarian political groups from one another in 1993, 94 and early
last year, a few of us did start asking some questions about his attitudes
and from where he could possibly be deriving such ideasthings.  They and
some of his actions seemed rather inconsistent with a truly well-educated
and experienced diplomat.  The answers I got suggested he was being
influenced by  both what Congressional aides were referring to as the
"Katzenjammer" kids in the White House offices (this one I had to think
about for awhile before I could remember the cartoon characters analogy),
and a few English "diplomats" whose acquaintance both his employer,
President Clinton and he had made years before.  I couldn't positively
identify who these particular Englishpersons were, but constantly heard that
"U.S. foreign policy toward East Central Europe, is actually made in
England."  We did politely write and call Mr. Lake and suggest alternatives
to what we were hearing and seeing, and to consult with reputable
non-Hungarians who might hold different, expert, opinions. We had been more
optimistic of better balance of late.

Again, not all Englishmen hold such prejudices as we have suffered.  There
are good and bad.  It was rather surprising to hear from so many  people
whom I think are much closer to the situation than I that they believe the
President and Mr. Lake are apparently selecting friends and advisers from
the not-so-egalitarian and ethnically tolerant subgroup of English
aristocrats.
>
>How could such major film critics make such a terrible error of fact
>independently of one another? My inclination would be to blame the press
>flacks at Gramercy Pictures. They obviously didn't check with the film's
>director or script writer to ascertain that Keyser Soze is Turkish.
>Confusing a Hungarian for a Turk is on the same order of magnitude as,
>say, confusing an Iowa corn farmer with a Guatemalan campesino. My error
>in this regard was three-fold: 1) Actually going to see the movie; 2)
>Paying close attention to it while I was in the theater; 3) Not seeking
>out a "real" Turk afterwards to enlighten me about Soze's nationality.

The problem is, was it just an honest error of fact?  Who--what individual--
owns Gramercy and what are his attitudes toward Hungarians?  Who are his
friends and business associates--and political friends and associates?  Does
anyone know the answer to any of this?  In view of what so many
Congressional aides connected to Foreign Relations/Affairs committees,
Defense committees were saying about _some_ possible English influence in
the White House, before the 1994 elections, do we maybe have a few very
highly placed enemies in England itself out to generally discredit
Hungarians?  All it takes is a few intolerant, "loose cannons" to give a
whole lot of innocent people--including the majority of English--a lot of
difficulties, and cause a lot of general mistrust.

May I suggest a few new polite letters directly to Mr. Lake informing him of
his latest error?  You may write to him at:

Mr. Anthony Lake, Assistant to the U.S. President for National Security
1st Floor, West Wing, The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC  20500

This is also the location of the U.S. President's offices, by the way.
Also,if writing from the U.S., send the letter "priority mail" to better
catch his secretary's attention.  It's as large and colorful as "express
mail" and only is 1/4 the cost.  I regret I can no longer make available his
fax number, since it has most recently changed.

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker

3273 B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA  95148
tel. & fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 02:51 PM 1/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
>A couple of comments on the discussion of feminism:
>
>1.  Andr=E1s is right when he argues against equal pay for equal 'worth'. =
=20
>The problem is that the enforcer of such legislation would not be able to=
=20
>judge what the 'worth' or value of the worker is.  Not only that, but=20
>they hurt the women most in need, because firms would be less inclined to=
=20
>hire women with little experience, likely to accept lower wages - these=20
>are the women who, perhaps, took some time off to take care of the=20
>children.

Actually they did a pretty good job of analysis, legislation and enforcing
in a few states.  Ever hear of the "Hayes Studies?"  They used some
excellent quantitative and qualitative measurements that were reasonably
objective.  The owner of the consulting company and most of the principals
who developed this analysis--which has been supported by quite a broad
political and social, etc. spectrum--were males, by the way.

I'm not sure the writers in this discussion group really understand the U.S.
term "comparable worth."  It is not the worth of the worker, per se, but the
comparability of the requirements of education, experience, working
conditions, etc. for the _jobs_ themselves.

As my late mother, Wilma Maie Wallace-Fabos said in July, 1981 during the
strike she organized and led against the City of San Jose; "it's a little
ridiculous to be paying female head librarians who have to have master's
degrees and deal with all sorts of people and complex research and other
problems, less than mostly male janitors required to have less than a
high-school education, and having few, mostly rather simple=
 responsibilities."

There is also another legal concept called "equal pay for equal work."  That
means if you do the same amount of work, with equally good effect, in
exactly the same position you deserve equal reward.  Again, however, the job
specifics are important; it's not just an abstract amount of effort
overcoming resistance or friction, and measured in foot pounds per inch or
something.  What this also relates to--and does not contradict--is the idea
that if you work harder and accomplish more--which is an unequal situation
to  the person next to you who has precisely the same job description and
tasks and time, you have the right to earn more money.
>
>2.  Joe is right when he says that the question has to do with=20
>socialism.  Only he's on the wrong side.  Discrimination based on gender=20
>is likely to DECREASE with free markets, because discrimination is=20
>expensive.  If there are women willing to do a job at the same cost as=20
>men, and firms discriminate against the women, the price of labour in the=
=20
>male labour market will go up (greater demand for male labour means=20
>higher price of male labour.)  The firms that are market-conscious and=20
>wish to improve their competing ability will hire women, who are willing=20
>to do the job at a lower cost (since the cost of male labour has gone=20
>up).  Those firms which do not do so will lose out.  As competition=20
>increases, and firms realise there are gains to be made by hiring women,=20
>the price of female labour will also go up.


It has, very slowly.  It still has a long way to go, but it got a good
kick-start with what I have just described as the real situation of
"comparable worth."  This is not just my assessment, either.  "U.S. News and
World Report," "The Wall Street Journal," and other generally well-regarded
periodicals have stated so several times in the last 5 years.

>The socialist solution is to attempt to do with legislation what the=20
>market would already accomplish on its own.  Only these schemes tend to=20
>backfire.  Equal pay schemes, for example, will have the results as=20
>stated in point number one above.  Quotas tend to cause friction among=20
>co-workers.  They also decrease the freedom of women to decide what=20
>industry they wish to work in.  For example, a male-dominated industry=20
>may be so because of discrimination, but it also may be so because women=20
>do not find it desireable to work in that industry - more men may want to=
=20
>be miners than women, for example.

True, regarding "quotas."  I've seen it far too often first hand.  It's an
interesting situation of who first promoted the quotas and how.  What was
really despicable, however, is the political party the "old liberals"
expected to see what was really going on and stop it, didn't.  The women
were really sold out by those they trusted most.  However, quotas were not a
part of the original issue of "comparable worth" and still are not generally
part of that discussion.
>
>There are also instances where discrimination is actually desireable. =20
>For example, men tend to prefer male doctors, and women, female=20
>doctors.  It may be more profitable for lingerie retalers to hire women=20
>salespersons than men.  Here the discrimination is based on the=20
>consumers' tastes.
>
>Discrimination, therefore, tends to decrease in the free market system,=20
>without harming the peculiarities of certain industries where the=20
>consumers are "gender-sensitive".
>
Ay, there's the rub, "free market."  It's the ideal, but often not the
reality in the U.S., just as elsewhere.  Not surprising in a country that
has as one of its most profitable industries, an entire industry built on
illusion...

Respectfully,=20


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker (one of the cofounders of AFSC&ME Local 2822,
Minneapolis, Minnesota and a leader of comparable worth issue in Minnesota,
1979-81...  Just one of the "six sisters.")

3273B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA  95148
tel. & fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

WANTED The Hungarian Quarterly 1994 Spring. 35:133

Reply to -- 

Mark Doering

I would like to obtain the following --

ACTA ETHNOGRAPHICA
1983 (32:1/4), 1980 (29:1/2), 1975 (24:3/4).

ETHNOGRAPHIA
1989 (100:1/4), 1987 (98:2/4), 1984 (95:2), 1982 (93:3), 1982 (93:1),
1981 (92:2/3), 1980 (91:3/4), 1979 (90:3), 1979 (90:1), 1976 (87:4),
1976 (87:1/2), 1973 (84:1/2), 1972 (83:4), 1972 (83:2/3), 1971 (82:1).

FOLKLORISMUS-BULLETIN
1980 October 2

NEPRAJZI KOZLEMENYEK
vol. 5  no. 1

MUVELTSEG ES HAGYOMANY
1985 (22), 1992 (25/6).

Reply to -- 

Mark Doering

A couple of comments on the discussion of feminism:

1.  Andr=E1s is right when he argues against equal pay for equal 'worth'. =
=20
The problem is that the enforcer of such legislation would not be able to=
=20
judge what the 'worth' or value of the worker is.  Not only that, but=20
they hurt the women most in need, because firms would be less inclined to=
=20
hire women with little experience, likely to accept lower wages - these=20
are the women who, perhaps, took some time off to take care of the=20
children.

2.  Joe is right when he says that the question has to do with=20
socialism.  Only he's on the wrong side.  Discrimination based on gender=20
is likely to DECREASE with free markets, because discrimination is=20
expensive.  If there are women willing to do a job at the same cost as=20
men, and firms discriminate against the women, the price of labour in the=
=20
male labour market will go up (greater demand for male labour means=20
higher price of male labour.)  The firms that are market-conscious and=20
wish to improve their competing ability will hire women, who are willing=20
to do the job at a lower cost (since the cost of male labour has gone=20
up).  Those firms which do not do so will lose out.  As competition=20
increases, and firms realise there are gains to be made by hiring women,=20
the price of female labour will also go up.

The socialist solution is to attempt to do with legislation what the=20
market would already accomplish on its own.  Only these schemes tend to=20
backfire.  Equal pay schemes, for example, will have the results as=20
stated in point number one above.  Quotas tend to cause friction among=20
co-workers.  They also decrease the freedom of women to decide what=20
industry they wish to work in.  For example, a male-dominated industry=20
may be so because of discrimination, but it also may be so because women=20
do not find it desireable to work in that industry - more men may want to=
=20
be miners than women, for example.

There are also instances where discrimination is actually desireable. =20
For example, men tend to prefer male doctors, and women, female=20
doctors.  It may be more profitable for lingerie retalers to hire women=20
salespersons than men.  Here the discrimination is based on the=20
consumers' tastes.

Discrimination, therefore, tends to decrease in the free market system,=20
without harming the peculiarities of certain industries where the=20
consumers are "gender-sensitive".


3.  Balogh =C9va may find me "insensitive" for using the word "bitchy". =20
"Bitchy" is not "politically correct".  A great problem with feminism=20
today is that it has become caught up in the wave of "political=20
correctness", which has set up standards for proper speech and writing=20
that are downright dictatorial.=20

4.  Johanne Tournier seems to have a balanced view on the topic.

5.  The psychological, emotional and physiological differences between=20
the sexes are there, and are not going to go away.  In recognition of this,=
=20
the way I treat a woman and the way I treat a man are different.  In many w=
ays=20
I have a higher respect for women than for men.  In others, the situation=
=20
is reversed.

jim


/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory


"...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the=20
soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,=20
and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with=20
understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -=20
this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and=20
pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what=20
he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate=20
this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."

Plato, Laws II

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /