NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6387

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 5.8 KB | 140 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <michael.724427507@glia> <[e-mail]> <michael.724961924@glia>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:22:55 GMT
Lines: 129

In article <michael.724961924@glia> [e-mail] (Michael) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <michael.724427507@glia> [e-mail] (Michael) writes:
>>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>>>>This may seem disingenuous to some people, but why does it even MATTER
>>>>whether or not the proportions of men and women in science and math are
>>>>equal?  As long as everyone is free to follow their own interests, most
>>>>people are bound to gravitate to whatever they do best.
>>>
>>>In the long run it won't matter.  But in the short run, there is still
>>>pressure in our culture against women becoming a part of scientific
>>>fields.  This cultural pressure is a leftover from the days when women
>>>didn't enjoy the same rights men did.  Its slowly dissappearing, but it
>>>hasn't gone yet.
>
>>>                  Working towards equal numbers is one way of speeding up
>>>the removal of this cultural pressure.
>
>>Sorry,
>
>Please don't be. :)
>
>>       what we have is another cultural pressure.
>
>True.  So? :)

So we have -more- cultural pressure, the old plus the new. The only way that
this might be construed as "speeding up the removal of this cultural pressure"
would be by endorsing the philosophy that -more is less-.

>>                                                  And it has neve been shown
>>that in the absence of cultural pressures, equal numbers should result.
>
>No, but more importantly it hasn't been shown that they won't result.

This is not more important. Rather it is another foregone conclusion.
Two 'not showns' tells you exactly nothing, not that either unknown is
reality.

>And even more importantly than that, there is clear evidence that equal
>numbers haven't been given a chance yet.

Quota's and AA hiring practices may achieve equal numbers, but they have
no relation whatsoever to your scenario in the "absence of cultural pressures".
Rephrased, they are not being given any chance now, and the legal
machinery will gurantee this for years to come.

>                                                  And I've seen sufficient
>evidence in my experience to believe that equality will result.  Of course
>the latter is my opinion.  But then I never claimed it was anything else.

Forced inequality will have the result of equality? Explain this to me.

>>This body count metric is not a measure of discrimination, there are no cross
>>checks or sanity checks of any kind.
>
>Not by itself it isn't.  So?

So it is worthless at best, and gives false alarms at worse, ergo false
accusations of sexism and discrimination. This has happened, and it is not
an unlikely scenario.

>>Like using water on the ground as a measure of rain, it will indeed tell
>>you that there has been rain. But it will also tell you that there has been
>>rain when it snows, when a water main breaks, when someone nearby washes
>>their car...
>
>Well, as I said I'm not using water on the ground as a measure of rain.
>Again, So?

If you use the body count determinism of sexism and discrimination, you are.

>>>>It has been my experience that most non-scientists are not very interested
>>>>in science, regardless of whether they are male or female.
>>>
>>>Yes, in the long run, this will no doubt be the rule by which some do join
>>>and some don't join the fields of science.
>>Maybe you should share your crystal ball with others. It sound like you
>>are just parroting political ideology. Last time this happened when people
>>listened was with Marxism. I have not noticed that the followers of Marx
>>came even remotely close to their ideal goals, or that one was better off
>>under their rule.
>
>Maybe you should stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and then
>insulting me for them?

Well, gee, "in the long run, this will no doubt be the rule by which some do
join and some don't join the fields of science" looks like a clear statement
of what will happen in the future. If you do not have a crystal ball, how
do you -know- the future? Or is there possible some "doubt" about the
future?

>                       Oh but in looking up at your name, I see you are
>the same person I just came down on in another post for stuffing words
>in someones else mouth and then making fun of them for it.  Seems to be a
>repetitive quality you have.

I can see that you will never be troubled by actual communication. And it
is amusing how you bash me on one hand, and object to the perception that
I am insulting you on the other hand.

>You are welcome however to make assumptions and not insult me.

There is a difference between taking insult, and offering it. You have
taken insult that I have not offered. This is your problem, deal with it
or not, there is nothing that I can do.

>                                                             Then when
>I respond I'll be happy to correct them for you.

Obviously, I am the one needing correction, not sharing your political
ideology.

>                                                  Of course as I'm about
>to go on vacation, I won't be able to do this till I return and may miss
>a post or two.  Of course it WILL give you plenty of opportunity to stuff
>more words in people's mouths.

Insulting to the very end...   <sigh>

>    Michael Stanley ([e-mail])


Rich

[e-mail]