NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6665

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 16.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6665 soc.women:21976 soc.men:21944
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Are special programs sexist/racist?  (long)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:02:17 GMT
Lines: 374

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>[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.)

Then none of the people from the Rural Poverty Culture (RPC) will even
be be applying for a position in research mathematics, as they will be
following their family occupation. You have invalidated the need for
such programs by eliminating any possible applicants.

And there is no mathematical model that I am aware of which says anything
(even potentially) about INDIVIDUAL behavior. You are still dealing with a
class, to which you assign attributes in a stereotypical fashion. In this
it would seem that you are in disagreement with several feminists who
post here.

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

But being in the right -class- of the disadvantaged is. And further,
this can be determined from background, sex, and color.

>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 am curious, how is it that a learning disability does not get in the
way?

>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!

Except for special programs and hiring quotas and the like.

>>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.

Let me try again, all you have posted seems to be at odds with this idea,
and in favor of class determinations of eligibility.

>>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.

Specifically, as long as they are not white males. So you support
sexism and racism when they meet your political ideals. What about the
rest of the time, what say you then?

>                 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.

But you just said...
|Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
|cases.

Do you support -exclusion- based upon membership of a class which you
define as not having obstacles? (and it seems to be assumption based
to a great degree) In cases of limited seating, are you in favor of
passing over those you deem from the wrong background to give the
available seats to those with the 'proper' social background?

>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?

Is sexism and racism right, wrong, or conditionally right or wrong in
your eyes? Are there any circumstances where you would consider favoritism
not in your favor as right?

>On the other hand, veteran science fiction writer Andre Norton (a woman)

I was surprised to find out 'he' was a woman, for a bit. I did not stop
reading her books.

>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.

And what do you say?

>Obviously, the issue of the Mills College summer program for female
>undergraduates is much less clear-cut. My intuition is that it *is*
>justified;

I know this is badly overused, but Hitler justified putting jews in the
gas chamber. I could care less for whatever personal justifications you
may have, and -all- justifications are personal (IMHO).

>             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.

Don't have to, the subject was these omnipowerful cultural stereotypes
which are killing women right and left, and doing other horrible things.

>                                      I know *I* was brainwashed by the
>stereotypes, and did not overcome such brainwashing till I was over 30.

And now you know the right way to brainwash others, is that it?

>And, as a over-30 graduate student who had to support herself, I
>*definitely* had some disadvantages to overcome.

It seems that you have not overcome sexism and racism.

>>>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.

No, that was your argument. I question the hypocrisy of such a program now.
Sexism ain't dead, it's live and well at Mills College, and all other female
colleges as well. And it seems most women support this sexism. They are far
less than supportive when they percieve men doing the same thing.

>                                             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.

I am saying that Government programs have no such limited lifespans.
And if they promote sexism, it will be with us for years to come.

>>>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".

Excuse me, this does not follow from what I have written. If you think
that it does, show me what made you think so. All the text is still here.

>                                                      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?)

Actually, I am against any programs which give foreign nationals
advantages over U.S. citizens in the U.S., especially when funded by
tax dollars.

>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.

It seems you see nothing wrong with being sexist or racist, at least
insofar as it is to your advantage, or to the advantage of those causes
you would champion (with others funds I might add).

>>I just feel that the solution should -solve- the problem, not mirror it.
>
>Then what *is* your solution? Be specific!!!

I am not even sure we see the same problem. If sexism and racism are
problems, then we need to support only non-sexist/racist programs, and
put an end to all institutionalized sexism/racism. This is the solution
to this problem. What is being done is selectively supporting/REQUIRING
certain forms of sexism/racism, and then everyone wonders why it has not gone
away.

>>>>>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?

Not unless it is related to the subject. What does this ability have
to do with mathematics for example? Should we also count juggling
ability and the ability to ride a unicycle as mathematics talent?

>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?

Perhaps to the young persons involved, but it should make no difference
in admission of selection for programs.

>                                              Wouldn't you suspect that
>the first person probably has *more* innate ability to perform the tasks
>measured by this test?

No, why would you make this -assumption-?

>(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!

I am not, but you do not match the definition that they have given for
a feminist. Do you consider yourself a feminist or not?

>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 disagee, this is a recipe for disaster across cultural boundaries.
Whatever limits are set in the native culture -are- what is right and proper.

>>>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.

You misintrepret my words! :^) I did not say that `I have a problem',
I said that "Then you would probably sell my franchise for your personal
advancement and call that "social justice". I have a problem with that."
It seems that you have a problem -reading- it.

>                               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?

It seems not to be an issue, you seem to be making your determination of
merit purely upon your assessment of the background.

Ability should be the overriding concern, if not the only concern.

>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.

Then what difference does the "nonstandard background" make?

>I am saying that a history of overcoming cultural obstacles, may be
>relevant in determining what that ability really is!

Aren't we a bit metaphysical here?

>                                                       And I know many
>specific cases where such considerations *did* turn out to be relevant,
>and will post them if necessary!

Post one if you please.

>>>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.

And I changed it back yet 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.


Rich

[e-mail]