NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6556

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 11.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6556 soc.women:21925 soc.men:21828
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Muffy and Rini, where are you?
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:06:25 GMT
Lines: 233

[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:

>I wonder, it it not just as likely that anyone from such a "rural poverty
>culture" who seeks a position in research mathametics, and is qualified,
>either did -not- have these disadvantages, or has necessarily overcome them
>already? As for the person who's father is a professor at Stanford, not all
>childen follow the profession or desires of their parents, some show no
>interest whatsoever. Do you have any idea how many do or do not?

A trivial point. Occupational inclinations *do* tend to run in families,
even though not everyone follows those of their family. (There's a study
of this in a textbook on mathematical modeling.)

I don't think overcoming disadvantages is an on-off thing. Specifically,
I know quite well that it is not.

I am a 43-year-old woman, who is currently a graduate student in
mathematics (and doing well, thank you). I am also learning disabled
(which has actually affected my life more than my academic performance).
And I didn't know any mathematics till I was over 30.

I do think my efforts have shown that I do belong in research
mathematics. I was never given a free ride, not in any way. But I could
not have made it without people in *some* ways taking my background into
account.

Note that the referee of my paper most certainly did *not* take my
background into account (and might not even have known my name). That is
as it should be!

>But my point is that you are putting people into classes, then assigning
>attributes to those classes, then acting as if those assumptions were
>true. Sounds kinda like stereotyping to me, and it is completely, absolutely,
>totally unecessary. The actual situation could more realistically be
>determined by questions on the application, and a short interview.

Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
cases.

>It is not a way to tell what obstacles people have faced at all. Why is it
>that stereotyping is an abomination in some cases, but required in others?
>And by the same socially conscious (tm) groups.

There are some cases, in which membership in a certain category makes it
almost certain that a person has faced inordinate obstacles; and in
these cases, it is IMHO morally acceptable to, for example, provide
scholarships and awards specifically targeted to members of that
category. There are other cases in which membership in a certain
category does *not* show that a person has faced such obstacles, or may
even indicate that a person has faced less obstacles.

Let me give you some very extreme examples:

Suppose someone had after World War II set up a scholarship for
concentration camp survivors, or set up one for Somalians today. Would
you have any objection to this on moral grounds?

On the other hand, veteran science fiction writer Andre Norton (a woman)
at one time set up a special award for female science fiction writers.
This may have seemed quite reasonable at the time, since
female science fiction writers were in the minority and may have
suffered some discrimination. However, at the present time I suspect
at least 33% of all science fiction writers are female -- maybe even more
than 50% -- and a lot of people, even feminists, are questioning whether
this award should continue.

Obviously, the issue of the Mills College summer program for female
undergraduates is much less clear-cut. My intuition is that it *is*
justified; but I think we should devote a specific, future posting to
discussing this particular issue.

>By the stereotypes discussed in other threads, these women should have been
>so brainwashed (c) that they would not even consider doing mathematics, after
>all, "math is hard"! I suspect that for the women in these programs, you are
>making assumptions.

I cannot speak for all women. I know *I* was brainwashed by the
stereotypes, and did not overcome such brainwashing till I was over 30.
And, as a over-30 graduate student who had to support herself, I
*definitely* had some disadvantages to overcome.

>>It is a rare social policy that will *always* be useful, forever.

>I thought we were discussing whether current policies are reasonable, now.

One of your arguments against the Mills College program, was that it may
indeed be less appropriate at some future time. I am not arguing with
you on this. I am just saying that *all* social institutions have a
limited lifespan; that *none* should be regarded as permanent.

>>And one of the reasons I am writing on the net, one of the keys to my
>>personal philosophy of social justice, is the idea that situations
>>change, that a policy which may have been useful in the past may not be
>>useful in the present.

>Your view of social justice seems no less sexist than the current situation.
>A bit ago, I stated that "if sexism is the problem, then it cannot also
>be the solution", and those who responded agreed. It seems that, by your
>post, you do not agree. Sexism and racism are fine if they help those from
>"disadvantaged backgrounds".

But, by your standards, you are also "sexist" and "racist". Or would you
be against the Somalian scholarship described above? What about a
scholarship for Saudi Arabian women? (Do you know the disadvantages
*they* face, even those of royal background?)

I am not saying that American women are in such an extreme situation. I
am saying that the issue is how reasonable a *specific* program is.

>I just feel that the solution should
>-solve- the problem, not mirror it.

Then what *is* your solution? Be specific!!!

>>>>I only wish that there was a *similar* program, available for *all*
>>>>individuals whose personal history shows that they have overcome
>>>>obstacles. (It is certainly true, that Joe Kettle may have faced
>>>>more obstacles than Wendy Rockefeller...)
>>
>>>Why is it that we do not support lame olympic runners? They are at a
>>>disadvantage, should they not be supported?
>>
>>Of course not. But lame mathematics professors should; that is one of
>>the reasons there is an elevator in the University of Illinois' mathematics
>>building.

>My point being that -ability- is a better indicator then class segregation.

I agree with you a thousand times over that ability is what should be
served, and that people have different inherent abilities. But what do
you take as the indicator of ability? Shouldn't the ability to overcome
social obstacles be taken into account?

Doesn't it mean more (I credit this example to William Raspberry) when a
young person from Cabrini-Green gets 700 on their math SAT than when a
person from a New England prep school does? Wouldn't you suspect that
the first person probably has *more* innate ability to perform the tasks
measured by this test?

(Note. I am not saying that SAT scores are a reliable indicator of
mathematics ability; just using them as an example.)

>>I think you are making a reasonable assumption, but one that is
>>incorrect. Many of the feminists writing on this net, would call
>>themselves "egalitarians." I would not.

>I recall that the definition rini gave for a feminist was essentially
>eglatarian, and Muffy just posted that "feminists came along and said that
>everyone should be free to follow their own interests", not just women.
>(a point which I disagreed with, but still a claim for eglatarianism)

>That is, the way feminism has been defined here has essentially (if not
>directly) been eglitarian.

Please do not expect me to defend rini and Muffy's beliefs (although in
many ways mine are similar). I can only defend my own!

Specifically, I do believe that in *most* cases people should be legally
and culturally free to do what makes decent common sense with their own
life. (Note I said *decent* common sense; and note I can name extreme
cases in which this right would not apply.)

>>I am not an egalitarian for two reasons:
>>
>>1) First of all, I see myself as being, all my life, a fighter for
>>social justice and for good. I am not always sure what these concepts
>>imply; but I would not be presumptuous enough to sum them up in one
>>single word.

>So you imply that "social justice" is not eglitarian? And that eglatarian
>goals are not "good"? Then you would probably sell my franchise for
>your personal advancement and call that "social justice". I have a problem
>with that.

I am sorry you have a problem with what I'm saying; but I don't think
your problem is very sincere. I cannot imagine that you really have a
problem with the idea that "good" will not exactly follow any book, any
specific definition, that you cannot give *any* verbal description of
good which will always be right, all the time, that you always have to
follow your individual conscience.

You may not agree with these ideas, but they are the keystone of Reform
Judaism and certain brands of Protestantism. I cannot believe you've
never encountered them before.

(Note: Of course, I am not saying that there are not some ideas, or
books, that should be taken very seriously. Just that people should not
follow them to the neglect of their conscience!)

>>2) I think the importance of *individual* human differences has
>>been strongly underrated. And if it is cruel to push a talentless person
>>to attempt skills not appropriate for them, it is equally cruel to
>>not develop the skills of a talented person. For this reason, I am
>>all in favor of programs which attempt to identify talented people of
>>nonstandard backgrounds, and train them. The reason for such programs is
>>not just to help the individuals, but to help the society that then
>>benefits from such talent.

>Why the -necessity- for "nonstandard backgrounds"?  Must those guilty of
>the crime of coming from what you define as coming from a standard background
>give up their carreer plans? It seems that you find against them, and they
>have no place in your political reality.

Suppose the person from a standard background actually has less ability?

I am not saying that people from a nonstandard background of less ability
should be favored over those from a standard background of more ability.
I am saying that a history of overcoming cultural obstacles, may be
relevant in determining what that ability really is! And I know many
specific cases where such considerations *did* turn out to be relevant,
and will post them if necessary!

>>I am aware that this is not the answer a typical feminist poster would
>>give you. I would really like to hear the response of others -- e.g.,
>>Muffy and Rini -- to your questions.

>I changed the subject line back, they may respond if they wish, but I do
>not see any requirement. And I would like to continue this thread.

>Rich
>payner@netcom

I would like to continue this thread too. And I would also like to hear
from Muffy and Rini. I *do* see a requirement for this, because I think
in some of the matters discussed they may represent the mainstream of
net.feminists more than I do. For these reasons, I changed the subject
line back again.

Lenore Levine

P.S. Rich, and others. I posted an essay to the net last summer, which
touches on some of the subject mentioned in this posting. Please let
me know if you want a copy.