jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/08/86)
> >>... Or maybe you're just saying that you care >>only about the quality of the people in technical fields, > > Quite right. > >>and not about the lack of representation of women and certain minorities, ... > > Yes; I believe one shouldn't categorize individuals on the basis on > such inessentials (in the context of intellectual pursuits; these > characteristics may of course be important in other contexts). The problem is that women and minorities *are* categorized on the basis of such "inessentials". If there were no discrimination, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. >>... I would find this attitude reprehensible..., for it contains the >>hidden assumption that fairness doesn't matter, > > If you think you're being fair to people by placing primary emphasis > on their sex or race rather than on things they have had a choice in > determining, that's just as sexist or racist as those you condemn > for having done so (in the opposite direction) in the past. I don't want to place primary emphasis on sex or race. The problem is that many people in positions of power do exactly that. As I said above, if there were no discrimination against women and minorities, I would have nothing to complain about. I think Doug is complaining about affirmative action here. So far, the main point of discussion has simply been the existence of discrimination in technical fields, which is a separate issue from how one should solve the problem. I respect the position that affirmative action is another form of unfairness that can't lead to any good, although I don't agree with it. What I don't respect is the attitude that we shouldn't try to do something about the problem, because the sex and race of the people who get most of the technical jobs shouldn't matter. Of course it shouldn't! That's the whole point! > >>or that fairness would condemn these fields to mediocrity. ... > > Not what I said or implied. The trouble with reverse sexists and > racists is that they have trouble evaluating a discussion without > judging it in sexist/racist terms. It sometimes seems that they're > on a massive guilt trip and want the innocent to share their guilt. Nobody mentioned "reverse sexism or racism" (Doug's name for affirmative action, I guess). I was responding to the implication that attempting to do something about discrimination in technical fields would be bad for science and technology. One reason for such a belief might be the belief that injection of more women and minorities into technical fields would lower the quality of people in those fields. I apologize for implying that Doug is sexist or racist. I shouldn't have speculated about his motives. > > Certainly, we should do our best to evaluate individuals as such and > not as members of ethnic or other accidental groups, and we have the > right to demand such treatment from our employers and peers. > > There are much worse problems with American education and the > professions than a historical imbalance in the distribution of > ethnic classes among the professions. By concentrating on the > equally inequitable attempt to adjust these distributions, people > are distracting attention from issues that are more important in > the long term. Emphasis on the individual rather than political > pressure groups would ultimately benefit everyone. This is pie in the sky. It would be great if we could ensure emphasis on the individual. How will this happen? There are plenty of racists and sexists out there, and to simply say that people should judge each other as individuals does not make it happen. How about some proposals for positive action? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/10/86)
In article <320@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >... How will this happen? There are plenty of racists >and sexists out there, and to simply say that people should judge each >other as individuals does not make it happen. How about some proposals >for positive action? I hadn't intended to say anything further on this subject, but since Jeff has finally started sounding reasonable, perhaps a response is in order. I do deplore all kinds of irrationality, of which racism and sexism are but two examples. The problem I have with the demands for "positive action" are that they presuppose certain things that I don't think are correct: (1) One has the right to dictate what ideas others are permitted to act upon. (2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the results of people's wrong-thinking. (3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would be if there were no wrong-thinking. On (1): Human beings' survival depends, among other things, on the quality of their mental processes. For the same reason that children become spoiled by over-protective parents, people who are not allowed to make their own decisions, act on them, and benefit or suffer from the consequences WILL NOT LEARN. In order to legitimately claim the right to make your OWN decisions, you must permit others the FREEDOM to make theirs, whether you agree with them or not. Only when actions directly affect the freedom of others is there a need to consider rules of ethics and legal protections. I believe a rational code of ethics draws the line precisely at the point of initiation of the use of physical force to coerce another individual. (NOTE: I am NOT espousing a Libertarian position! Today's Libertarian movement is more a front for anti-authoritarians than a movement that recognizes the fundamental worth of the individual. Until the culture has a favorable climate for an idea, it's premature to politicize it.) On (2): The way to counter bad ideas is with good ones. If you really believe (as I do) that categorizing individuals primarily on the basis of inessential characteristics (such as sex, race, or nose size for most professions) is at best ill-advised and perhaps even unethical, then by all means attempt to convert the wrong-thinkers to a better idea by rational persuasion. This may be combined with "activist" measures such as organizing protests, refusing to buy products, or any other non-coercive measure. If you really have good ideas, sell the ideas. If you have to force people to go along with them, because they can't be persuaded, then one possibility is that you haven't understood them clearly enough yourself to make a convincing case for them. The proper r^ole of government in this is to protect the rights of the individual. That includes the individuals that you think are mistaken, so long as they're not threatening physical force. Sure, you have the right to freely seek employment, but just as surely a potential employer has the right to turn you down, if the two of you don't agree that your mutual interests are served by the coalition. If a professor implies that your sex should not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in attending that university (try complaining to the management, or attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that the professor was plain incompetent). Stop whining that the world owes you respect, and go out and EARN its respect. There are too many examples of individuals who have overcome professional obstacles for one to use the obstacles as an excuse for not achieving. I recommend William Goldman's "The Princess Bride". The world is simply NOT FAIR. It's unrealistic to think it ought to be. On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom of choice. On the other hand, natural forces are very powerful, so in the long run they will win out, if allowed to operate freely. A natural balance can be forestalled indefinitely by active manipulation by intelligent creatures, but if you're in favor of a natural balance why would you do that? The folly of trying to "help" nature has been shown in many examples.. In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not governmental action. "Protect us from our protectors."
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/11/86)
> Doug Gwyn: PLEASE NOTE: the examples I give below ARE NOT a personal attack on Doug, NOR do they imply that he sees the world in such terms. > (1) One has the right to dictate what ideas others are > permitted to act upon. > (2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the > results of people's wrong-thinking. > (3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would > be if there were no wrong-thinking. > > On (1): Human beings' survival depends, among other things, on > the quality of their mental processes.... > .... In order > to legitimately claim the right to make your OWN decisions, you > must permit others the FREEDOM to make theirs, whether you agree > with them or not. Only when actions directly affect the freedom <<-- NOTE > of others is there a need to consider rules of ethics and legal <<-- NOTE > protections. > > On (2): The way to counter bad ideas is with good ones. > .... If you really have good ideas, sell the ideas. If you > have to force people to go along with them, because they can't > be persuaded, then one possibility is that you haven't understood > them clearly enough yourself to make a convincing case for them. But the point of affirmative action is not to force ideas on people, but precisely to prevent people's ideas from affecting the choices of others. Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? The debate is over the implementation, i.e. action, policy. > The proper role of government in this is to protect the rights > of the individual. That includes the individuals that you think > are mistaken, so long as they're not threatening physical force. > Sure, you have the right to freely seek employment, but just as > surely a potential employer has the right to turn you down... OK, let's look at this. ALL employers have the right to not employ anyone named Doug Gwyn. Furthermore, that pattern of thinking is a normal, natural part of the culture. Angry? Now replace "named Doug Gwyn" with "not white, not male". Does that belief not limit the choices and freedom of those who do not belong to these categories? Further, is it not the proper role of a government pledged by its constitution to uphold the rights of all its constituents to take action to prevent the majority from so restricting the freedom of a minority, and to correct the economic and social effects of such restrictions? > If a professor implies that your sex should > not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in > attending that university (try complaining to the management, or > attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; > many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that > the professor was plain incompetent). Complain to a management or administration made up of the professor's bridge partners or drinking buddies? How far do you think a pipsqueak undergraduate is going to get? > owes you respect, and go out and EARN its respect. There are too > many examples of individuals who have overcome professional > obstacles for one to use the obstacles as an excuse for not achieving. How many such examples can you cite from the period the President refers to as "when this country did not know it had a race problem"? I believe that a very large majority of individuals who have overcome professional obstacles did so because a legal mechanism blocked the hostility of those they had to compete against from snuffing out their brilliance. > On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* > influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think > of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this > is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to > know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to > legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom > of choice. On the other hand, natural forces are very powerful, > so in the long run they will win out, if allowed to operate > freely. A natural balance can be forestalled indefinitely by > active manipulation by intelligent creatures, but if you're in > favor of a natural balance why would you do that? The folly of > trying to "help" nature has been shown in many examples.. Recall that toward the end of the 19th century, a number of "scientific" papers were published that used skull volume, size of eyebrow ridges, height, etc, to "prove" the superiority of the white male. Note that similar arguments surfaced in the 50s and 60s when black children were getting low scores on IQ tests tailored specifically for whites. What "natural factors"? What data exist that factor out the influence and effects of the environment? Using the "it is not proven" argument to promote passivity in the face of determined discrimination is governmental irresponsibility of the worst sort. > In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not > governmental action. "Protect us from our protectors." Nonsense. The economic data shows that people are having *real*, *long-term* limitations placed on their freedom and development because of discrimination. Government *cannot* reject its responsibility to these citizens and push the search for a solution onto philosophers. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/12/86)
In article <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >The world is simply NOT FAIR. It's unrealistic to think it ought to be. This is amusing, Doug, highly amusing. So you realize AA as being unfair in sense X and thus ought to be rejected, while telling the potential ben- ificiaries to put up with harrassment and other unfairnesses in sense Y? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/12/86)
In article <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >The proper role of government in this is to protect the rights >of the individual. Including the rights to a harrassment/discrimination free education? > If a professor implies that your sex should >not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in >attending that university .... And if the professor/university receives government money? Then the gov- ernment is *obligated* to intervene, one might think. >The world is simply NOT FAIR. It's unrealistic to think it ought to be. This is amusing, Doug, highly amusing. So you realize AA as being unfair in sense X and thus ought to be rejected, while telling the potential ben- ificiaries to put up with harrassment and other sense Y unfairnesses? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/12/86)
In article <14816@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes: >This is amusing, Doug, highly amusing. So you realize AA as being unfair >in sense X and thus ought to be rejected, while telling the potential ben- >ificiaries to put up with harrassment and other unfairnesses in sense Y? That is an attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said nor implied. I have NOT told anybody I think they should put up with harrassment and other unfairness. I even suggested some specific actions that might be appropriate to counter them. It would be truly amazing (if I hadn't seen so much of it before) how many people simply cannot understand what someone else is saying if it differs from what they themselves already believe. This is partly due to the educational deficiencies I mentioned in my first comment on this topic. There was an excellent discussion of this entitled "Why Johnny Can't Think" as one of the Ford Hall Forum talks. I think a reprint is available; if anybody is interested, send me mail and I'll see if I can find out how to get a copy. Gwyn@BRL.ARPA
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/12/86)
In article <627@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel-Franck Simon) writes: >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical fallacy that disturbs me. I hope nobody thinks that I like the historically-evolved state of affairs. I detest unfair discrimination as much as anybody I know. I differ in what I consider to be appropriate action and in my reasons therefor. >Government *cannot* reject its responsibility to these citizens and push >the search for a solution onto philosophers. This is the Libertarian fallacy. Someone else asked me why I did not consider the ideas I espouse as Libertarian. This seems like a good opportunity to explain this; if you don't care, please skip the rest of this article. Many years ago, I was a student of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. I found it to be a breath of fresh air in the fuzzy-thinking culture I grew up in. Although she made mistakes and antagonized a lot of well- meaning people, I agree with perhaps 98% of what she had to say. As an undergraduate from 1966 to 1971, I was actively involved in what turned out to be the Libertarian movement, and therefore know how it developed. Since then, I have checked up on it from time to time, and am no longer in sympathy with it at all, although I'm a staunch advocate of liberty. The following excerpts from Objectivist publications tell the story the same way I saw it evolve: from The Objectivist Newsletter, Apr-1965, "A Message to Our Readers" by Nathaniel Branden (author of several books on psychological theory and "biocentric" psychotherapy): Some allegedly pro-capitalist groups, it appears, have been impressed with the size and quality of the Objectivist following, and -- succumbing to what can only be described as delusions of grandeur -- have decided to launch a special effort to "convert" Objectivist students. Having no understanding of what has made the growth of Objectivism possible, dismissing philosophy as irrelevant, they seek to cash in on the effects while remaining unconcerned with the cause. ... I refer to any organization or school which professes to be fighting for laissez-faire capitalism, but which *in fact* (though seldom by admission) advocates political *anarchism* -- and, which seeks to enlist students of Objectivism under the guise of a common cause. (A brief expose of these anarchists may be found in Miss Rand's article, "The Nature of Government", which appeared in the December 1963 issue of this NEWSLETTER and is reprinted in *The Virtue of Selfishness*.) from The Objectivist, Sep-1971, "Brief Summary" by Ayn Rand: "Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles -- specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism -- as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context." ... In summing up this publication's record, I shall say that I am not *primarily* an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not *primarily* an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. ... The hierarchical structure cannot be reversed, nor can any of its levels hold without the fundamental one -- as those who have tried are beginning to discover. ... More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right", who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. from The Intellectual Activist, 10-May-1985 Vol. III No. 19&20 (double issue), continued in 25-Jun-1985 Vol. IV No. 1, 04-Dec-1985 Vol. IV No. 3, "Libertarianism" (cover article): It is the fact of this public recognition that makes Libertarianism such an insidious ideology. For it has managed to delude a wide audience into believing that it upholds the inviolability of individual rights. People accept Libertarianism's claim to being an uncompromising advocate of freedom and an unwavering foe of any initiation of force. As a result, Libertarianism has succeeded in drawing the support of many genuine advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, who regard Libertarianism as an intellectual ally. Conversely, it has attracted the antagonism of many who smear capitalism in the belief that Libertarian doctrine epitomizes the pro-laissez-faire viewpoint. Both sides are grievously mistaken. On the pages that follow, we offer our evidence. followed by the three-part article "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz: The Libertarian movement has been the target of some unjustified criticism. Conservatives complain that, with its opposition to such social controls as drug and pornography laws, Libertarianism values liberty above order and tradition. Liberals complain that, with its opposition to such government benefactions as food stamps and the minimum wage, Libertarianism values liberty above compassion and humanitarianism. The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: *it does not value liberty*. The article goes on to defend this statement and does a superb job of demolishing Libertarianism's pretensions to being a proponent of liberty. That article is now available as a 64-page booklet ($4.95). If you are interested in rational analysis of current events and suggestions for concrete actions that can be taken to help to establish similar ideas, you may benefit from a subscription ($44 for 20 issues in U.S. and Canada, $64 elsewhere, past issues $2.50 each) to this publication (ISSN 0730-2355): The Intellectual Activist 131 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 New York, NY 10003 Please, if you have any silly flames about Ayn Rand, keep them to yourself. This was an attempt to be helpful and you don't have to respond.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/13/86)
Generic spelling flame: I don't know who started it, but several other people and myself have been spelling harassment with two r's. In article <2164@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (famous net.police.dog.awardee) writes: >In article <14816@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes: >>This is amusing, Doug, highly amusing. So you realize AA as being unfair >>in sense X and thus ought to be rejected, while telling the potential ben- >>ificiaries to put up with harassment and other unfairnesses in sense Y? > >That is an attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said nor implied. >I have NOT told anybody I think they should put up with harassment and >other unfairness. I even suggested some specific actions that might be >appropriate to counter them. Yes, such great recommendations like transfer to another school? Sorry, Doug, but that's the same as putting up with the status quo in my book. Or how about *complain* about not getting a chance, as opposed to actu- ally getting a chance? There's a wide enough middle group and gray area of talent that it really doesn't matter *who* gets selected from it, from the point of view, say, of university admissions and resulting overall quality. There's a myth that everyone can be ranked by SAT scores or the like, and one just takes the top XXX, and that way one is "fair". Frank- ly, considering that SAT scores have a +/- 50(?) accuracy attached, and a strong positive correlation to family income , there is no basis for even choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means. So what's wrong with being generous to minorities in the process? It's not as if quality is going to drop or anything, Ayn Rand notwithstanding. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
buckley@sbcs.UUCP (Gael Buckley) (07/14/86)
> If a professor implies that your sex should > not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in > attending that university (try complaining to the management, or > attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; > many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that > the professor was plain incompetent). Well, well, its pretty easy to be able to blame an incompetent professor if the whole class agrees, but if there's only a few of the discriminated subclass distributed within the class, and one or two of this subclass isnt being treated as the general class is, it takes a PRETTY STRONG personality to blame the prof rather than the individual. I have heard my women fellow students assume they ask stupid questions because the prof never acknowledged their hands. The smartest women knew what was going on, the mid-curve students felt bad about themselves. The mid-curve males didnt have that problem, because their questions were answered. > > On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* > influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think > of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this > is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to > know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to > legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom > of choice. It is NOT proven there is NO natural influence of sex...???????? What is this, mildly guilty until proven innocent???!?!?! I can conjure many OPINIONS why there are no blacks whatsoever in any second level university computer sci. course Ive ever taught, but I would PREFER to assume everyone is created equal (gee, I think I have heard that somewhere before...) unless there are compelling demonstrations otherwise. Gael B.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/14/86)
In article <145@sbcs.UUCP> buckley@sbcs.UUCP (Gael Buckley) writes: >> On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* >> influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think >> of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this >> is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to >> know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to >> legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom >> of choice. >It is NOT proven there is NO natural influence of sex...???????? >What is this, mildly guilty until proven innocent???!?!?! >I can conjure many OPINIONS why there are no blacks whatsoever in >any second level university computer sci. course Ive ever taught, >but I would PREFER to assume everyone is created equal (gee, I think >I have heard that somewhere before...) unless there are compelling >demonstrations otherwise. Well, to make the point in a way that you may find somewhat offensive, it is believed by many sex researchers that the nature of the male sex drive is different from that of the female, and there are many biological mechanisms involved that are well known to differ, so this is probably correct. I suspect that in an absolutely free society there would be more female prostitutes than male prostitutes, due to higher market demand. Prostitution is certainly a sex-linked profession. I don't know for sure, but I also suspect that a natural balance would find a different percentage of dark-skinned races employed in outdoor labor than exists in the population as a whole. I know of no reason to expect a significant imbalance in professions on the basis of natural inequitable distribution of intelligence among races or sexes. There does seem to be a natural difference in average strength, and women float better than men due to the subcutaneous layer of fat, etc. Some professions may naturally favor certain characteristics such as these. My belief is that it is proper to discriminate among individuals on the basis of demonstrable job qualifications (and that fair treatment *requires* such discrimination), but not by considering an individual as a member of a stereotyped "class". It is obvious to anyone who has watched children develop that not all individuals are created equal. There is much other evidence of this too. You may indeed prefer to believe otherwise, but that doesn't change reality. (At this point the old-guard philosophers usually rush in to attack the idea that there is such a thing as an objective reality. Let's ignore any such diversionary tactics.)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/15/86)
>(1) Doug Gwyn in <2615@brl-smoke.ARPA> >(2) Doug Gwyn in <2159@brl-smoke.ARPA> > > Me > >Indeed, the idea that a racially and sexually balanced work force is > >desirable is no longer much in debate, is it? > >(1) In fact, I challenge the emphasis on this and not on the real cause of >(1) the problem, as explained in another note I just posted about the logical >(1) fallacy that disturbs me. >(2) "If A were true, then B would occur." >(2) "A is desirable." >(2) "Therefore, B is desirable." >(2) >(2)WRONG. No sane scheme of logic allows this reasoning. >(2)To relate this to the original discussion, let A be >(2) "Women should be treated fairly as individuals." >(2)and B be >(2) "There would be a more balanced distribution of >(2) the sexes among the professions." Well, fine, but proponents of AA like myself do not view "Women should be treated fairly as individuals" as the basis for Affirmative Action, which kills your fallacy argument. I made the point in my article that ideas are one thing, social policy is another. That women should be treated fairly is an idea, which is realized (or not) in millions of individual cases, but cannot be legislated. That women's achievements are limited by a pattern of discrimination ingrained in the social fabric is fact. AA does *not* address sexism and racism, but their discriminatory *effects*. The Civil Rights Act does not decree that *racism* is illegal, but that one cannot *discriminate* on the basis of race, sex, etc. The difference is crucial, even if opponents of AA gloss over it. AA places the burden of proof on employers, schools, etc. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment gave all citizens equal protection under the law but it took nearly a century for the Supreme Court (in the 1954 Brown decision) to agree that racial discrimination violates that constitutional protection. Moreover, it took more than ten years before the thick fabric of discrimination was outlawed in its entirety. Yet it exists even today. Time magazine recently ran an article detailing discriminatory practices in housing that are alive and well, even (especially?) in cities, such as Atlanta, where blacks have gained a significant political presence. Do you now understand how wary we are when we hear "well, you are now equal. Go on, succeed"? AA, then, turns the situation around. It tells an employer with a past history of discrimination (that's virtually everyone) that *he* must prove that the history is indeed past. One hopes that in the process, some of the racist and sexist thinking that leads to the discrimination will disappear, but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing the barriers that have been built all around them. I don't claim that AA is perfect. I note, however, that the opponents of AA never propose anything to replace it. There is a massive and diverse body of literature that shows that the necessity of some legal mechanism as deterrent to the multitude of faces discrimination adopts. AA is such a mechanism. We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/15/86)
In article <14838@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes: > ... there is no basis for even > choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means. So what's wrong > with being generous to minorities in the process? ... Discriminating FOR someone on the basis of such an inessential is wrong for precisely the same reasons as discriminating AGAINST the person on the same basis. It does not do justice to the person as an individual, but places importance on something over which the individual had no control. That's a disservice and an insult to the person's values. The wider context of this error I have discussed in other postings. I am sure that there are many relevant "tie-breaker" criteria that could be used to disambiguate such a situation. The LAST thing that would be advisable would be to stoop to employment of the same kind of thinking that brought on the evils you're trying to combat. How can you actually expect to establish good ends with evil means? That error of thought was rather thoroughly demolished 43 years ago in the form of the character Gail Wynand in "The Fountainhead", which you should read if you need it explained to you.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/15/86)
In article <629@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) writes: >but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class >of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing >the barriers that have been built all around them. Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. >We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who >disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. I have proposed what needs to be done. One aspect of that is that there is zero objective value in a particular statistical ethnic distribution as such. There is great value in the recognition of and support for individual rights, but AA does not accomplish this and in fact is not consistent with it.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/16/86)
> Or how about *complain* about not getting a chance, as opposed to actu- > ally getting a chance? There's a wide enough middle group and gray area > of talent that it really doesn't matter *who* gets selected from it, from > the point of view, say, of university admissions and resulting overall > quality. There's a myth that everyone can be ranked by SAT scores or the > like, and one just takes the top XXX, and that way one is "fair". Frank- > ly, considering that SAT scores have a +/- 50(?) accuracy attached, and a > strong positive correlation to family income , there is no basis for even ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ > choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means. So what's wrong > with being generous to minorities in the process? It's not as if quality > is going to drop or anything, Ayn Rand notwithstanding. > > ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 This (^^'ed part) would be a argument for being generous to students from lower income families. The assumption that "minority" == "lower income" is not always correct.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/16/86)
> Doug Gwyn: > I don't know for sure, but I also suspect that a natural balance would > find a different percentage of dark-skinned races employed in outdoor > labor than exists in the population as a whole. Why? > There does seem to be a natural difference in average strength, and > women float better than men due to the subcutaneous layer of fat, etc. > Some professions may naturally favor certain characteristics such as > these. The examples you cite are based on physical differences, which have little to do with the distribution of females in technical/scientific professions, which are in turn the topic of discussion, I believe. So why are your examples relevant? > It is obvious to anyone who has watched children develop that not all > individuals are created equal. There is much other evidence of this > too. You may indeed prefer to believe otherwise, but that doesn't > change reality. There is much evidence that shows girls have equal ability to solve abstract problems, and that ability diminishes because they discouraged from exercising it. That is reality too, even if *you* prefer to believe otherwise. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/16/86)
> Doug Gwyn > >Me > >but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class > >of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing > >the barriers that have been built all around them. > > Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim > such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. I did not say power "over" others, I said "rightful place at the table of power." The rights (read power) of a minority are guaranteed by the law in this country. You can see the difference, can't you? > >We happen to think it works fairly well. I think it is up to those who > >disagree to put forth their own proposal for a replacement. > > I have proposed what needs to be done. One aspect of that is that > there is zero objective value in a particular statistical ethnic > distribution as such. There is great value in the recognition of > and support for individual rights, but AA does not accomplish this > and in fact is not consistent with it. I must have missed your proposals. Please send them to me by mail, as the article has expired here. As for "recognition and support of individual rights," my article (the main points of which you do not respond to) talked about how AA's function is preventing discrimination from impeding basic rights. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Ayiti cheri, pi bon payi pase' ou nan poin " " Fok moin te' kite'-ou, pou moin te kapab konpran vale`-ou "
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/16/86)
In article <2240@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >In article <14838@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes: >> ... there is no basis for even >> choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means. So what's wrong >> with being generous to minorities in the process? ... > >Discriminating FOR someone on the basis of such an inessential is >wrong for precisely the same reasons as discriminating AGAINST the >person on the same basis. It does not do justice to the person as >an individual, but places importance on something over which the >individual had no control. That's a disservice and an insult to >the person's values. The wider context of this error I have >discussed in other postings. All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. >I am sure that there are many relevant "tie-breaker" criteria that >could be used to disambiguate such a situation. The LAST thing >that would be advisable would be to stoop to employment of the same >kind of thinking that brought on the evils you're trying to combat. >How can you actually expect to establish good ends with evil means? I hope you are right in your first sentence. But about the rest: It's not the same kind of thinking at all. Discrimination against takes the form of "I'm not going to hire any lazy niggers". Discrimination for takes the form of "I'm going to give these people the benefit of the doubt". Just because you can cast it in a form where these two sound similar doesn't make them the same. Life is not mathematics, or even physics. Jeff Winslow
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/16/86)
In article <2250@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <629@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) writes: >>but that is not the primary intent. That is to permit this *large* class >>of citizens to claim their rightful place at the table of power, by removing >>the barriers that have been built all around them. > >Nobody has a "right" to power over others. It is doubly wrong to claim >such a "right" on the basis of race or sex. Clever, but it won't wash. Marcel said or implied nothing about anyone claiming a right to power *over* others. In fact, he specifically chose an image - that of sitting at table - to emphasize the claim of *equal* power. (Well, approximately equal, anyway.) I hope Marcel will forgive me for butting in like this, but I couldn't let such a blatant twist of meaning go unscathed. Jeff Winslow
linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) (07/17/86)
In article <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> Doug Gwynn writes: > In article <320@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > >... How will this happen? There are plenty of racists > >and sexists out there, and to simply say that people should judge each > >other as individuals does not make it happen. How about some proposals > >for positive action? > > [...] > > I do deplore all kinds of irrationality, of which racism and sexism > are but two examples. The problem I have with the demands for > "positive action" are that they presuppose certain things that I > don't think are correct: > (1) One has the right to dictate what ideas others are > permitted to act upon. *Government* certainly has some right to dictate what actions are permitted. This is amply demonstrated in areas of civil and criminal law, including both laws concerning the behavior of individuals and of corporations; and in regulation of industry and commerce. Or shall we dismantle all of these, too? Is it unacceptable to include social goals as an area in which government is permitted to act? Then of course we must dismantle ALL welfare, public health insurance, etc. > (2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the > results of people's wrong-thinking. Governmental action is desirable in furthering societal goals. Otherwise government would be entirely unnecessary. > (3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would > be if there were no wrong-thinking. We must assume *some* level of consensus, in order to operate at all as a society. > On (1): Human beings' survival depends, among other things, on > the quality of their mental processes. For the same reason that > children become spoiled by over-protective parents, people who > are not allowed to make their own decisions, act on them, and > benefit or suffer from the consequences WILL NOT LEARN. In order > to legitimately claim the right to make your OWN decisions, you > must permit others the FREEDOM to make theirs, whether you agree > with them or not. Even when those others are in positions of power from which you, as member of some group, are systematically excluded: that is, even when THEIR power denies YOUR freedom of choice??? No possibility of benefit; the consequences suffered are from others' unethical (etc., etc.) decisions. Think about it. > Only when actions directly affect the freedom > of others is there a need to consider rules of ethics and legal > protections. I believe a rational code of ethics draws the > line precisely at the point of initiation of the use of physical > force to coerce another individual. Drawing the line at PHYSICAL force is a very convenient device, allowing you to sweep all the institutionalized inequities under the rug. Fine for you, if YOUR group has never been at the receiving end. > [disclaimer regarding Libertarianism deleted] > On (2): The way to counter bad ideas is with good ones. If you > really believe (as I do) that categorizing individuals primarily > on the basis of inessential characteristics (such as sex, race, > or nose size for most professions) is at best ill-advised and > perhaps even unethical, then by all means attempt to convert the > wrong-thinkers to a better idea by rational persuasion. This > may be combined with "activist" measures such as organizing > protests, refusing to buy products, or any other non-coercive > measure. If you really have good ideas, sell the ideas. If you > have to force people to go along with them, because they can't > be persuaded, then one possibility is that you haven't understood > them clearly enough yourself to make a convincing case for them. If you are consistently well-qualified, yet consistently denied the benefits that would be expected as a result, then one possibility is that the game is rigged. I think that very many people have come to that conclusion. Affirmative action is, in essence, an admission that the game is (was) rigged, and a commitment to un-rig it. Do you disagree with the assessment that it was rigged? Do you think that underachievement by blacks, women, etc., etc. is based on their natural inferiority? Or their being "by nature" unsuited for certain pursuits (as a group, at least)? Why was it necessary for the game to be rigged in the first place? > The proper role of government in this is to protect the rights > of the individual. That includes the individuals that you think > are mistaken, so long as they're not threatening physical force. That includes the individuals whose aspirations are crushed by institutionalized prejudice. > Sure, you have the right to freely seek employment, but just as > surely a potential employer has the right to turn you down, if > the two of you don't agree that your mutual interests are served > by the coalition. If a professor implies that your sex should > not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in > attending that university (try complaining to the management, or > attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; > many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that > the professor was plain incompetent). Stop whining that the world > owes you respect, and go out and EARN its respect. There are too > many examples of individuals who have overcome professional > obstacles for one to use the obstacles as an excuse for not achieving. There are, of course, examples of those who have overcome obstacles. However, that does not in itself justify the obstacles. If ALL of your teachers in elementary or high school make assumptions about you based on your race, gender or whatever else, you have little recourse. It is a fact that few limiting assumptions are made about white males, as a class, in our culture. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that this has profound effects? Do you admit the possibility? > I recommend William Goldman's "The Princess Bride". The world is > simply NOT FAIR. It's unrealistic to think it ought to be. I don't know the book, but agree with your point that one should be realistic and not expect the world to be "fair" (whatever that means). It is definitely true that one should not limit oneself because of this, nor should one spend all of one's energy bemoaning it. But one has the right, if not the duty, to try and make it better. > On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* > influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think > of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this > is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to > know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to > legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom > of choice. On the other hand, natural forces are very powerful, > so in the long run they will win out, if allowed to operate > freely. A natural balance can be forestalled indefinitely by > active manipulation by intelligent creatures, but if you're in > favor of a natural balance why would you do that? The folly of > trying to "help" nature has been shown in many examples.. Yes, like in denying women the OPPORTUNITY of higher education; in denying women souls; in denying women any place in politics; in denying them PERSONHOOD. And then saying it's "nature". And that their resulting status is NATURAL. Try reading Marilyn French, "Beyond Power", to get some historical insight. > In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not > governmental action. "Protect us from our protectors." Yes, indeed, keep the government doing what it does best: protecting the status quo. Don't, for heaven's sake, expect anyone with any power to DO anything about it! -- "The sun is but an egg, that hatches great things" Linda Mundy {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda Relational Technology, Inc., Alameda, CA
hsgj@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Dan Green) (07/18/86)
In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as >insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if >you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be >very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that I wasn't qualified for. You can't fool people for long if you're ignorant, and all you'll end up doing is making yourself look stupid. Since this is a "why aren't there many (minority) so-and-so's" discussion, if you are a minority and you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " -- Dan Green ARPA: hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu ~~~~~~~~~ BITNET: hsgj@cornella UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/18/86)
In article <638@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> (Dan Green) writes: >In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as >>insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if >>you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be >>very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. > > Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that I wasn't qualified >for. You can't fool people for long if you're ignorant, and all you'll >end up doing is making yourself look stupid. Since this is a "why aren't >there many (minority) so-and-so's" discussion, if you are a minority and >you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself >look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you >that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " Maybe. But bright initially underqualified people have been known to learn rapidly on the job. Or, try substituting "raise" for "chance" above and read it again. I stand by my statement. The only people that think an individual makes their race look bad are those who think races can look bad to begin with. Jeff Winslow
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/20/86)
> > In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as >>insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if >>you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be >>very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. > > Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that I wasn't qualified > for. You can't fool people for long if you're ignorant, and all you'll > end up doing is making yourself look stupid. Since this is a "why aren't > there many (minority) so-and-so's" discussion, if you are a minority and > you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself > look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you > that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " > -- > Dan Green ARPA: hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu I don't think Jeff Winslow was talking about qualifications. Here's an example that might clarify things. Suppose two people, A and B, are up for the same job. They are equally qualified. A has been working for the company for 10 years, B for 1 year. B gets the job. Rightfully, A deserves the job because of seniority (remember, they are equally qualified). A is pissed. B is surprised, but not pissed. Oh, by the way, B is a white male, and A is a black female. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
hsgj@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Dan Green) (07/21/86)
> >I don't think Jeff Winslow was talking about qualifications. Here's an >example that might clarify things. Suppose two people, A and B, are up >for the same job. They are equally qualified. A has been working for the >company for 10 years, B for 1 year. B gets the job. Rightfully, A deserves >the job because of seniority (remember, they are equally qualified). A is >pissed. B is surprised, but not pissed. Oh, by the way, B is a white male, >and A is a black female. >-- Ahhhhh.......equal qualifications. Ok. Then you have a problem. However, I think that cases of true equality are few. e.g., in your example, (A) is more qualified because of seniority. However, if the example were changed so that both (A) and (B) had been working for the same time etc. and were equally qualified, then you have a real problem. These cases are probably decided by other, non-professional factors. Problems, problems.... BTW. Nobody has answered my gravity query! -- ARPA: hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu UUCP: ihnp4!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj BITNET: hsgj@cornella
cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (07/21/86)
In article <2213@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: > >Well, to make the point in a way that you may find somewhat offensive, >it is believed by many sex researchers that the nature of the male >sex drive is different from that of the female, and there are many >biological mechanisms involved that are well known to differ, so this >is probably correct. I suspect that in an absolutely free society there >would be more female prostitutes than male prostitutes, due to higher >market demand. Prostitution is certainly a sex-linked profession. > >I don't know for sure, but I also suspect that a natural balance would >find a different percentage of dark-skinned races employed in outdoor >labor than exists in the population as a whole. > >I know of no reason to expect a significant imbalance in professions on >the basis of natural inequitable distribution of intelligence among >races or sexes. Read Strunk & White. If you want to say that you think women and blacks are stupid, say that you think women and blacks are stupid. >There does seem to be a natural difference in average strength, and >women float better than men due to the subcutaneous layer of fat, etc. >Some professions may naturally favor certain characteristics such as >these. My belief is that it is proper to discriminate among individuals >on the basis of demonstrable job qualifications (and that fair treatment >*requires* such discrimination), but not by considering an individual as >a member of a stereotyped "class". Oh really. So if teachers and faculties, (by dint of discriminatory treatment of their students) produce only white males who are "qualified" then discrimination is *fair* and no outcry is to be raised against unfair educational practices (such as requiring female students to be teaching assistants for four years of graduate study then claiming that "it's their fault" when little research progress is made, while giving research jobs and important scientific problems to their male students...). If you read the original article, you would know that we started off discussing the influence of culture and teacher's attitudes on the performance and interests of students. >It is obvious to anyone who has watched children develop that not all >individuals are created equal. It is obvious to anyone who has watched children in a classroom with J. Random Teacher that individuals are treated differently on the basis of sex and race--regardless of performance, interest and natural endowment. >There is much other evidence of this >too. You may indeed prefer to believe otherwise, but that doesn't >change reality. >(At this point the old-guard philosophers usually rush in to attack >the idea that there is such a thing as an objective reality. Let's >ignore any such diversionary tactics.) Your view of reality is shallow, looking only at the effects, and since those effects favor you, Mr. H. Awnkie, you have no need to look at the causes. Can you spell "Self-Serving"? Cheryl
cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (07/21/86)
In article <638@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> hsgj@batcomputer.UUCP (Dan Green) writes: >In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as >>insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if >>you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be >>very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. The original discussion centered on <minority> <whatevers> was about the differences in the treatment of individuals at a time when they are to make themselves qualified--in school. The question is really "why are there so few <minority> *explicitly qualified to do* <whatever>?" Therefore, when Jeff says "given a chance" he is not referring to being handed a job, but rather to being given an educational opportunity, or the benefit of the doubt in a dubious situation--much to the same degree that white males are given the benfit of the doubt if their parents are rich and/or famous. (The ole correlation between parents' income and "success") What does a degree from an Ivy mean if all you need to get in is money? > Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that I wasn't qualified >for. You can't fool people for long if you're ignorant, and all you'll >end up doing is making yourself look stupid. Since this is a "why aren't >there many (minority) so-and-so's" discussion, if you are a minority and >you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself >look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you >that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " Have you read any of the original articles? Are you sure you're not jumping into the middle of a discussion that you have not really been following? Several others have also taken the subject line to make this a discusssion of AA when the topic was originally a discussion of how people are negatively influenced against excelling in math and physics specifically during the stage of gathering qualifications and credentials, not how they are treated once they have established those qualifications and credentials. Cheryl --- A man and his son are in an accident. The man dies and the son goes to the hospital. At the hospital, the doctor walks in and says, "I can't operate on this boy. He is my son."
cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (07/21/86)
>> It is obvious to anyone who has watched children develop that not all >> individuals are created equal. There is much other evidence of this >> too. You may indeed prefer to believe otherwise, but that doesn't >> change reality. > >There is much evidence that shows girls have equal ability to solve abstract >problems, and that ability diminishes because they discouraged from exercising >it. That is reality too, even if *you* prefer to believe otherwise. There is also a correlation between the predominant sex of the teachers at a stage of education, and which sex student excells at that stage. Girls are better students than boys in elementary school--where most of the teachers are women. The situation reverses in high school and college--where most of the teachers are men. Cheryl
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/21/86)
In article <343@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> [Dan Green] >> if you are a minority and >> you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself >> look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you >> that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " > >I don't think Jeff Winslow was talking about qualifications. Here's an >example that might clarify things. Suppose two people, A and B, are up >for the same job. They are equally qualified. A has been working for the >company for 10 years, B for 1 year. B gets the job. Rightfully, A deserves >the job because of seniority (remember, they are equally qualified). A is >pissed. B is surprised, but not pissed. Oh, by the way, B is a white male, >and A is a black female. Fine, in that situation I would have not qualms about some form of government action. If this kind of problem were the main one attacked by the existing Affirnmative Action program I would have no objection to it! Unfortunately the main situation where AA is applied is where there are fewer qualified minority candidates(due to past inequalities in education and opportunity) and the net result of the quota system applied is that employers are forced to hire less qualified minority persons. If the person responsible for the hiring was prejudiced to begin with this will in fact tend to *confirm* that prejudice not eliminate it. The result is that AA may in fact actually make the problem *worse*, making it a permanent institution rather than a temporary patch until things get better. So what to do? First provide improved *education* opportunities through government grants and the like(we have been doing that at least). Second, provide incentives(in the form of tax rebates or something) for companies which provide training/hiring programs for underpriveledged minorities. Perhaps a massive advertisement campaign, something like many cities are using to combat teenage drug abuse, to educate employers to the problem. And provide recourse (perhaps through civil law) to people victimized as in the above example. There are many things like this that can be done which do not involve promoting the very thing we are trying to eliminate. For example, many parents will punish a child for getting in a fight with a spanking. Child psychologists are now telling us that this actually gives the child the message "it is OK to hit if you are big enough to get away with it". I feel that the current AA program is doing the same thing, it is saying "prejudice is OK if the government allows it". -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
li@uw-vlsi.ARPA (Phyllis Li) (07/21/86)
The reason that there are so few female physicists is that so few females are interested in physics or taught to be interested in physics. In my high school there were four females in a class of 27 in an advanced physics class and at Caltech I was the only girl that made it into the high level physics sections as a freshman; and the stuff got so high powered that I dropped out of it because I hadn't either the time or the interest to continue at a research level. The professor encouraged me to stay for as long as I felt comfortable and was willing at any time to help me with any problems or questions that I might have had. He was equally available to the males of the class. For a time Caltech was rumoured to be lowering their standards just to allow more females and blacks to participate. It was untrue, they actually allowed people in that didn't qualify at the time of admission, but were required to take classes from the school the summer before. The result was disaster. More females dropped out, practically all of the blacks dropped out, and the class that graduated that year had started as one of the largest in the school turned out to be one of the smallest. Another note is that most of the classes that enter Caltech enter with a 5:1 ratio or better of females to males; however the overall ratio is still around 7 or 6:1. Simply, more females drop out, on a ratio, than guys. And from my own experiences, it isn't because of any sexual discrimination on the part of the professors or the TAs. Others may have different perceptions of the situation. >In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>All very righteous and high-minded, but would you really feel just as >>insulted if you were given a chance you didn't deserve as you would if >>you were denied a chance you deserved? I sure wouldn't, and I would be >>very skeptical of anyone else saying they would. Well, then, be skeptical of me. I was severlly insulted by the employment divisions of two companys that offered me high paying jobs that had nothing that they needed done, that simply took advantage of the fact that I was a double minority and formerly a student without taxable income (some states with employment drives give Big tax breaks for hiring someone that was formerly unemployed or employed below a subsitance level). If I had taken those jobs I would have had saved them more money and fulfilled enough Quotas to make it worth their while to hire me and not have me to anything. The assumption that I resented was that I *would* do nothing. And, being above all an arrogant Techer, that angered me enough after a cursory questioning of my supposed soon-to-be boss to say to the face of the employment manager that I was not going to take their job and why. I agree with Dan Green in that if I couldn't do a job, even if it paid megabucks, I wouldn't take it, no matter how string-free it looked because I know that I am a representative of females in high tech and that if I louse up that will reflect on others in the field. We *are* relatively new to these fields and I know that I am still watched for slipups, foulups and like misfortunes and used to for future consideration for hiring of females in the companys I go to. Also, for the jobs that really aren't there would have been a vast feeling of resentment amoung the majority workers that, hey! she's getting paid more and better than I am *just* because she's female! And I and any other female engineer would have to combat that resentment at any time we tried to work with others in the company. My solution to the problem? I think that the AA is right to try and integrate people on the work level; however, it would be nice if they could curb the problems with the discrimination between majorities and minorities that give the minorities undeserved positions, like quotas. I think it right to help those minorities that didn't get in eventhough they have the same qualifications; but utterly wrong to make it so that unqualified minorities get what a qualified majority tried to get. I think quotas are dumb, now, they were necessary to just get people to see that minorities *can* do the jobs; however, part of me thinks that they are now just as much of a detriment as they are a help. I think that if one really wanted to make sure that there were more minority physicists, engineers, or mathematician that they should start at the school level. Make is possible for a scientist or engineer to teach at the high school or junior high school level without thinking that they have sacrificed a career for it. Have people that love the stuff teach at high minority concentrated schools, have them actively recruit females. A dream, perhaps; but that is the only place that will have any overall affect. At the moment the active movement to get minorities into college is a good thing as well. I think that the only way that minorities will be really accepted is if we do what we can to be the best people there are. Sad, but I still think that for a good, long while, that bit about a woman having to do better than a man to get appreciated is going to go on for a while and there is nothing that the AA is doing to help that. However, I think that this country is working on it. Liralen -- "Happiness is getting married to ones best friend." USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li ARPA: li@uw-vlsi.arpa
chabot@3d.dec.com (Euphorbia albomarginata) (07/24/86)
?: >>There is much evidence that shows girls have equal ability to solve abstract >>problems, and that ability diminishes because they discouraged from exercising >>it. That is reality too, even if *you* prefer to believe otherwise. Cheryl: >There is also a correlation between the predominant sex of the teachers >at a stage of education, and which sex student excells at that stage. >Girls are better students than boys in elementary school--where most >of the teachers are women. The situation reverses in high school and >college--where most of the teachers are men. I was on the tag end of a group of teacher's pets in fifth grade science. Walking to lunch one day she sighed, and said in a couple of years we'd throw this all over for other things. I took it as a challenge. I don't think it's true that the ability diminishes. The confidence in one's ability does, sometimes, and so does the confidence to demonstrate the ability in front of men. I was blessed in high school with gifted teachers who weren't partial to students of one gender or another. One in particular..., well, the world lost some color when Ed White left us. l s chabot
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/24/86)
> There is also a correlation between the predominant sex of the teachers > at a stage of education, and which sex student excells at that stage. > Girls are better students than boys in elementary school--where most > of the teachers are women. The situation reverses in high school and > college--where most of the teachers are men. And note that most high school English teachers are female, while high school Math teachers tend to be male.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/24/86)
In article <502@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: > > Discrimination against takes >the form of "I'm not going to hire any lazy niggers". Discrimination for >takes the form of "I'm going to give these people the benefit of the >doubt". Just because you can cast it in a form where these two sound >similar doesn't make them the same. Life is not mathematics, or even >physics. > There is a second kind of discrimination for that says "I don't want ot hire any lazy niggers, but the government says I got to". It is *this* that is being promoted by Affirmative Action, it would take a quite different approach to get the "benifit of the doubt" scenario you mentioned. To get that you must get the employer to cooperate voluntarily, because he sees it as a good thing. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/25/86)
> Well, then, be skeptical of me. I was severlly insulted by the employment > divisions of two companys that offered me high paying jobs that had nothing > that they needed done, that simply took advantage of the fact that I was a > double minority and formerly a student without taxable income (some states > with employment drives give Big tax breaks for hiring someone that was > formerly unemployed or employed below a subsitance level). If I had taken > those jobs I would have had saved them more money and fulfilled enough > Quotas to make it worth their while to hire me and not have me to anything. > The assumption that I resented was that I *would* do nothing. And, being > above all an arrogant Techer, that angered me enough after a cursory > questioning of my supposed soon-to-be boss to say to the face of the > employment manager that I was not going to take their job and why. Similar situations happen in colleges and universities. The emphasis nowadays is on `enrollment and retention', a euphamism for admitting as many targeted- group students as possible, then making sure that they stay as long as possible. This means discouraging them from taking difficult courses or majors (so they don't flunk out) and getting them to take a lesser number of courses per semester/quarter (so they graduate in 5 or 6 instead of the usual 4 years; such a 5 year student counts 5/4 as much as a 4 year student in figuring quotas). The result is that the really well qualified student who would have gotten in and succeeded anyway to feel inferior because of his/her race/sex. The presence of a large number of `quota admits' lowers the college community's perception of the student's race/sex, thus causing others to see him/her less favorably than a student from a non-targeted group. Those who are the actual `quota admits' would face the same prejudice, but also would likely receive an education of marginal value (the easiest major and course selection).
chabot@3d.dec.com (Euphorbia albomarginata) (07/25/86)
> For a time Caltech was rumoured to be lowering their standards just to allow > more females and blacks to participate. Before 1973, Caltech did not admit women at all as regular students. (I know this because they told me so when I was a high school senior. They also told me to be flattered that they thought I could apply.) One might say instead, that by restricting their admissions to men only for all those years, Caltech was lowering their standards of admission by not even considering women. l s chabot, who went to a school with a better record for admitting women in spite of being admitted to Caltech
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/25/86)
In article <4368@decwrl.DEC.COM> chabot@3d.dec.com writes: >?: >>>There is much evidence that shows girls have equal ability to solve abstract >>>problems,and that ability diminishes because they discouraged from exercising >>>it. That is reality too, even if *you* prefer to believe otherwise. > >Cheryl: >>There is also a correlation between the predominant sex of the teachers >>at a stage of education, and which sex student excells at that stage. >>Girls are better students than boys in elementary school--where most >>of the teachers are women. The situation reverses in high school and >>college--where most of the teachers are men. > >I don't think it's true that the ability diminishes. The confidence in one's >ability does, sometimes, and so does the confidence to demonstrate the ability >in front of men. Natural ability may not change, but when you've been working problem-sets doggedly for several years, your learned ability goes way up. On my SAT's my verbal score was higher than my math. After 4 years of Engineering school, on the GRE's, my verbal score stayed the same, but the math was now much higher than the verbal. It's just a matter of what you spend your time on. In AP Chemistry in High School, there were only two men to demonstrate ability in front of. One other student and the teacher. All the rest were women. This was partly my doing. I went around socially to everybody who had taken AP Biology and the top-tracked math course in Sophomore year, and encouraged the women to take AP Chemistry ("Aw, it won't be that hard. I'm taking it. That means it will be *fun*" [I was also the class clown]) and discouraged the men from taking AP Chemistry ("It will be easier to get an A in Reagents chemistry. And besides, if you take AP Chemistry now, they'll place you in sophomore-level Chem when you get to college, and you might not be prepared for it. I'm not taking AP chem, No-Sir-ee." [so I changed my mind, heh-heh]) It worked. There were 8 women and only 1 man the year *I* took AP Chem! And it didn't matter at all whether or not we had confidence in front of men or not, because all the men who *would* have taken it were too easily influenced *not* to take it--we started calling them chicken-shits later in the year. Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a martyr so it didn't work on him. Cheryl
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/27/86)
> Similar situations happen in colleges and universities. The emphasis nowadays > is on `enrollment and retention', a euphamism for admitting as many targeted- > group students as possible, then making sure that they stay as long as > possible. ... > ..... such a 5 year student counts 5/4 as much as a 4 year student > in figuring quotas). The result is that the really well qualified student > who would have gotten in and succeeded anyway to feel inferior because of > his/her race/sex. The presence of a large number of `quota admits' lowers > the college community's perception of the student's race/sex, thus causing > others to see him/her less favorably than a student from a non-targeted > group. Those who are the actual `quota admits' would face the same prejudice, > but also would likely receive an education of marginal value (the easiest > major and course selection). I don't know where you get your figures, but at the school I attended (Stevens Tech, Hoboken, NJ) there were minority students who were encouraged to enroll despite slightly lower high school scores. These students were required to attend remedial classes the summer before freshman year, and received additional tutoring during freshman year. They most emphatically were not steered into easier majors (unless you consider chemical engineering, say, easier than computer science) and they took the same classes as the rest of the student body (the Stevens curriculum is so structured that all the engineering students take pretty much the same courses until junior year.) Some of these students flunked out, some were average, and some were *outstanding*, not much different from the rest of the stdent body. As for whether the extra tutoring is unfair, tutoring was available to all students, and required of those who received a GPA of less than 2.0 after the first semester of freshman year. The tutoring was the same; indeed the tutors were often the same; I know, I was a tutor in both programs. Finally, the situation you speak about is not much different than that practiced at some schools, including the Ivies: student (of whatever race or sex) does not really have the grades, but in the admission form essay or in interviews displays original thinking. The school thinks this may be a late bloomer, or someone not very good at taking tests. School gives student benefit of the doubt, admits student. This is common practice, especially at top schools, has been for a long time. Do you object to that also? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs On or about August 1, I will no longer have access to mhuxr and hence the net. If you want to reply, comment, disagree, rebut or flame, do so quickly, or send email to hl3b5b.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (07/27/86)
> > Jeff Winslow: > > Discrimination against takes > >the form of "I'm not going to hire any lazy niggers". Discrimination for > >takes the form of "I'm going to give these people the benefit of the > >doubt". > > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen): > There is a second kind of discrimination for that says "I > don't want ot hire any lazy niggers, but the government says I got > to". It is *this* that is being promoted by Affirmative Action, it > would take a quite different approach to get the "benifit of the doubt" > scenario you mentioned. To get that you must get the employer to > cooperate voluntarily, because he sees it as a good thing. Yes, that is the crux of the question. The AA reasoning says that if you have to hire them, and you have to consider them promotion, and since normal statistical distribution predicts that some of them wil be quite good, that they will make their way up the ladder. The point is to prevent the mechanisms blocking their access to the first rungs. This is accomplished by making the emloyer show why he is unable to find qualified people. Do opponents of AA have any alternative proposal that does not permit employers to mouth off platitudes while discriminating against women and minorities? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs On or about August 1, I will no longer have access to mhuxr and hence the net. If you want to reply, comment, disagree, rebut or flame, do so quickly, or send email to hl3b5b.
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (07/28/86)
In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >It worked. There were 8 women and only 1 man the year *I* took AP Chem! >And it didn't matter at all whether or not we had confidence in front of >men or not, because all the men who *would* have taken it were too easily >influenced *not* to take it--we started calling them chicken-shits later >in the year. Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves >once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a >martyr so it didn't work on him. are you PROUD you did this? face it Cheryl, you just hate men on principle. no exceptions. Herb Chong, IBM Research... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie%ibm.com@csnet-relay ARPA: herbie@ibm.com, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/28/86)
> It worked. There were 8 women and only 1 man the year *I* took AP Chem!
He probably stuck around for the only time he would ever see a favorable
(to him) sex ratio! :-)mikes@encore.UUCP ( Mike Skrzypczak) (07/28/86)
In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In AP Chemistry in High School, there were only two men to demonstrate >ability in front of. One other student and the teacher. All the rest >were women. This was partly my doing. I went around socially to everybody who >had taken AP Biology and the top-tracked math course in Sophomore year, >and encouraged the women to take AP Chemistry ("Aw, it won't be that hard. >I'm taking it. That means it will be *fun*" [I was also the class clown]) >and discouraged the men from taking AP Chemistry ("It will be easier to >get an A in Reagents chemistry. And besides, if you take AP Chemistry >now, they'll place you in sophomore-level Chem when you get to college, >and you might not be prepared for it. I'm not taking AP chem, No-Sir-ee." > . . . > Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves >once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a >martyr so it didn't work on him. > >Cheryl Cheryl: Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making the AP Chem class mostly women was. I also do not understand why one of the males dropped the course just because you said it was easy and worked your buttocks off at the problem sets. Why is a person who stays in AP Chemistry a martyr and a masochist? Is it just because you tried to force him out the class? Maybe he saw through the bullshit and understood that he was there to learn chemistry, and not to match his own course performance with yours. I applaud you for encouraging more females to take the course (I think it is overrated as to difficulty (I found AP Physics E&M harder)). I would applaud you more if you had encouraged more people to take the course. Awaiting your reply... Michael Skrzypczak
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/28/86)
In article <526@bnrmtv.UUCP> timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes: >> Well, then, be skeptical of me. I was severlly insulted by the employment >> divisions of two companys that offered me high paying jobs that had nothing >> that they needed done, that simply took advantage of the fact that I was a >> double minority and formerly a student without taxable income (some states >> with employment drives give Big tax breaks for hiring someone that was >> formerly unemployed or employed below a subsitance level). If I had taken >> those jobs I would have had saved them more money and fulfilled enough >> Quotas to make it worth their while to hire me and not have me to anything. >> The assumption that I resented was that I *would* do nothing. And, being >> above all an arrogant Techer, that angered me enough after a cursory >> questioning of my supposed soon-to-be boss to say to the face of the >> employment manager that I was not going to take their job and why. >Similar situations happen in colleges and universities. The emphasis nowadays >is on `enrollment and retention', a euphamism for admitting as many targeted- >group students as possible, then making sure that they stay as long as >possible. This means discouraging them from taking difficult courses or >majors (so they don't flunk out) and getting them to take a lesser number of >courses per semester/quarter (so they graduate in 5 or 6 instead of the >usual 4 years; such a 5 year student counts 5/4 as much as a 4 year student >in figuring quotas). You're talking about the children of the rich and famous right? You mean like kids with last names like "Rockefeller" and "Watson" right? I won't even start on what's been going on with James D. Watson's son at Prep school -- one that he wouldn't have gotten into without Dr. Daddy's big name. All I have to say is that it serves the guy right to have his son screw up so badly after what he did to Rosie Franklin. There is justice after all. >The result is that the really well qualified student >who would have gotten in and succeeded anyway to feel inferior because of >his/her race/sex. The presence of a large number of `quota admits' lowers >the college community's perception of the student's race/sex, thus causing >others to see him/her less favorably than a student from a non-targeted >group. Let's throw in socioeconomic status and let the word "race" mean WHITE and "sex" mean MALE. Honey, I've seen some *DUMB* WHITE BOYS around the IVYS, I mean DUMB. And the reason they need that OLD BOY SHIT is that they need daddy daddy and uncle so-and-so around to make them look good, and to power-muscle other people away who would make their darling WHITE BOY look bad. Says one woman to another at the polo arena: "He has no right to look so dumb. He's not *that* rich!" >Those who are the actual `quota admits' would face the same prejudice, >but also would likely receive an education of marginal value (the easiest >major and course selection). Spoken like a true white boy. Cheryl
kapa@ihlpg.UUCP (Perkins) (07/29/86)
> In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: > >In AP Chemistry in High School, there were only two men to demonstrate > >ability in front of. One other student and the teacher. All the rest > >were women. This was partly my doing. I went around socially to everybody who > >had taken AP Biology and the top-tracked math course in Sophomore year, > >and encouraged the women to take AP Chemistry ("Aw, it won't be that hard. > >I'm taking it. That means it will be *fun*" [I was also the class clown]) > >and discouraged the men from taking AP Chemistry ("It will be easier to > >get an A in Reagents chemistry. And besides, if you take AP Chemistry > >now, they'll place you in sophomore-level Chem when you get to college, > >and you might not be prepared for it. I'm not taking AP chem, No-Sir-ee." > > > . > . > . > > Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women > >got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our > >buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was > >easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, > >he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves > >once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a > >martyr so it didn't work on him. > > > >Cheryl > > Cheryl: > Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? > I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making > the AP Chem class mostly women was. I also do not understand > why one of the males dropped the course just because you said > it was easy and worked your buttocks off at the problem sets. > > Why is a person who stays in AP Chemistry a martyr and a masochist? > Is it just because you tried to force him out the class? > Maybe he saw through the bullshit and understood that he was there > to learn chemistry, and not to match his own course performance > with yours. > > I applaud you for encouraging more females to take the course > (I think it is overrated as to difficulty (I found AP Physics > E&M harder)). I would applaud you more if you had encouraged > more people to take the course. > > Awaiting your reply... > > Michael Skrzypczak Another example of something that when men do it, it is sexist; when women do it, it expresses solidarity.
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/29/86)
In article <326@encore.UUCP> mikes@encore.UUCP ( Mike Skrzypczak) writes: >In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >>In AP Chemistry in High School, there were only two men to demonstrate >>ability in front of. One other student and the teacher. All the rest >>were women. This was partly my doing. I went around socially to everybody who >>had taken AP Biology and the top-tracked math course in Sophomore year, >>and encouraged the women to take AP Chemistry ("Aw, it won't be that hard. >>I'm taking it. That means it will be *fun*" [I was also the class clown]) >>and discouraged the men from taking AP Chemistry ("It will be easier to >>get an A in Reagents chemistry. And besides, if you take AP Chemistry >>now, they'll place you in sophomore-level Chem when you get to college, >>and you might not be prepared for it. I'm not taking AP chem, No-Sir-ee." >> >. >> Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >>got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >>buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >>easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >>he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves >>once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a >>martyr so it didn't work on him. >> >>Cheryl > >Cheryl: > Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? We just wanted to see if we could do it. Certain men had tried exactly the same tactics on us when it came to taking the top-tracked math courses and AP Chem. They made our job pretty easy for us. When they came around telling us *not* to take AP Chem, we just agreed with them that they were perfectly right, and then told them that they shouldn't take it either if they felt that way. It was more a case of holding up a mirror to the game they had started, rather than starting up a game of our own making. > I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making > the AP Chem class mostly women was. The advantage to us was not having to suffer the male-vs.-female game-playing that goes on in such a course. It was either us or them. We decided that we would rather have it be us. Politics ain't pretty, but it's the way things work. We proved that. Why should we have to put up with people in the course who don't *really* want to be there? I mean, if they *really* wanted to be there, they wouldn't have let us talk them out of it so easily. Of course we were fully aware that the men were possibly as capable as us, but why should we let them take advantage of a chance to show it, especially when they were so easily talked out of making the most of this opportunity? > I also do not understand > why one of the males dropped the course just because you said > it was easy and worked your buttocks off at the problem sets. Actually, he was the one who started complaining about how hard the work was, perhaps making a feeble attempt at baiting us into feeling similarly overworked. I caught one woman giving into it, and promptly winked at her and said "Nah, it's not *that* hard. Just takes a little concentration and perseverance, right Sue?" Then she realized that it was the *effort* she was complaining about, not the difficulty of the problem set. The guy, being of weaker character continued to blame the difficulty of the problem sets, and dropped out. We merely took advantage of his weakness. > Why is a person who stays in AP Chemistry a martyr and a masochist? > Is it just because you tried to force him out the class? We didn't try to force him out. We just told him that things would be easier for him in a different class, that he would have less work to do, and have an easier time of getting a good grade. > Maybe he saw through the bullshit and understood that he was there > to learn chemistry, and not to match his own course performance > with yours. Yeah, probably, but I decided to call him a martyr and a masochist -- because that's what women are called when they devote themselves to a course of study. Just trying to illustrate a point. > I applaud you for encouraging more females to take the course > (I think it is overrated as to difficulty (I found AP Physics > E&M harder)). I would applaud you more if you had encouraged > more people to take the course. You did? Sorry to hear that. We had to put up with men there. I guess they just couldn't stand the idea of women taking over. >Awaiting your reply... >Michael Skrzypczak
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (07/29/86)
In article <670@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: >In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >>It worked. There were 8 women and only 1 man the year *I* took AP Chem! >>And it didn't matter at all whether or not we had confidence in front of >>men or not, because all the men who *would* have taken it were too easily >>influenced *not* to take it--we started calling them chicken-shits later >>in the year. Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >>got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >>buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >>easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >>he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves >>once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a >>martyr so it didn't work on him. > >are you PROUD you did this? Yes, as a matter of fact I am. We all got together on it, on an informal basis of course. Old girls. We didn't make it impossible to even take the class by asking that men be explicitly denied spots (the way women couldn't attend Dartmouth in the 60's, the way women, including Marie Curie were explicitly barred from the French Academy of Sciences....) We merely took advantage of their own weaknesses to push things in the direction which suited us. It's called "POLITICS". When it comes to men doing this to women, then women finding themselves less qualified for certain jobs later on in life and therefore being kept out of them, it's called "ONLY FAIR"! Of course I'm proud to prove how easily peoples' interests and achievements are influenced by their social environment. And besides, the guys who would have taken AP Chem got their precious A's and some even thanked us for the good "advise" in senior year when they were applying to colleges. >Herb Chong, IBM Research... Are you PROUD to work for a company that invented the female keypunch operator, not to mention promoting typing as "womens' work" ? I mean, these are cases where no historical precedent was set (anyone who even *touched* computers were men, and secretaries were originally men-in-training for management positions), and yet, IBM saw the labor pool of women and took advantage of it in the worst way possible. Just thought I'd point that out. >face it Cheryl, you just hate men on principle. no exceptions. You just don't like seeing the subtler games men play to keep women down exposed in such a ruthless fashion. I don't hate men. I'm just able to see through their games. >VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH >UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie >CSNET: herbie%ibm.com@csnet-relay >ARPA: herbie@ibm.com, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu Did you know that when IBM puts these addresses on business cards, they're using the ARPA INTERNET (paid for by TAXPAYERS) for their OWN business purposes? The use of USENET (paid for by the individual sites) for business purposes is a faux-pas, but the use of ARPANET like this is ILLEGAL. Just thought I'd point that out. Cheryl
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/29/86)
> > Similar situations happen in colleges and universities. The emphasis nowadays > > is on `enrollment and retention', a euphamism for admitting as many targeted- > > group students as possible, then making sure that they stay as long as > > possible. ... > > ..... such a 5 year student counts 5/4 as much as a 4 year student > > in figuring quotas). The result is that the really well qualified student > > who would have gotten in and succeeded anyway to feel inferior because of > > his/her race/sex. The presence of a large number of `quota admits' lowers > > the college community's perception of the student's race/sex, thus causing > > others to see him/her less favorably than a student from a non-targeted > > group. Those who are the actual `quota admits' would face the same prejudice, > > but also would likely receive an education of marginal value (the easiest > > major and course selection). > > I don't know where you get your figures, but at the school I attended (Stevens > Tech, Hoboken, NJ) there were minority students who were encouraged to enroll > despite slightly lower high school scores. These students were required to > attend remedial classes the summer before freshman year, and received additional > tutoring during freshman year. They most emphatically were not steered into > easier majors (unless you consider chemical engineering, say, easier than > computer science) and they took the same classes as the rest of the student > body (the Stevens curriculum is so structured that all the engineering students > take pretty much the same courses until junior year.) Some of these students > flunked out, some were average, and some were *outstanding*, not much different > from the rest of the stdent body. As for whether the extra tutoring is unfair, > tutoring was available to all students, and required of those who received a > GPA of less than 2.0 after the first semester of freshman year. The tutoring > was the same; indeed the tutors were often the same; I know, I was a tutor in > both programs. > > Finally, the situation you speak about is not much different than that > practiced at some schools, including the Ivies: student (of whatever race > or sex) does not really have the grades, but in the admission form essay > or in interviews displays original thinking. The school thinks this may > be a late bloomer, or someone not very good at taking tests. School > gives student benefit of the doubt, admits student. This is common > practice, especially at top schools, has been for a long time. Do you > object to that also? > -- > Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs > > On or about August 1, I will no longer have access to mhuxr and hence the net. > If you want to reply, comment, disagree, rebut or flame, do so quickly, or > send email to hl3b5b. The original message referred mainly to the colleges' and universities' motives with respect to female|black|hispanic|native|etc students. Many colleges, especially comprehensive public colleges in liberal states, will want to be able to say `we have x% female|black|hispanic|native|etc students'. Many of those admitted are not admitted because the school thinks they can do well, but because they will raise the percentages. The school doesn't really care about the minority students, just about its own PR. As for Stevens Tech, I don't think it is either comprehensive or public (but correct me if I'm wrong), so it isn't subject to the political pressures that comprehensive public (ie, supposed to serve the general state population) college/university must face. Thus Stevens Tech can do whatever it thinks can help female|black|hispanic|native|etc students without worrying about `hey, why do you only have y% female|black|hispanic|native|etc students? enroll some more !'
timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) (07/29/86)
> In article <526@bnrmtv.UUCP> timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes: > >> Well, then, be skeptical of me. I was severlly insulted by the employment > >> divisions of two companys that offered me high paying jobs that had nothing > >> that they needed done, that simply took advantage of the fact that I was a > >> double minority and formerly a student without taxable income (some states > >> with employment drives give Big tax breaks for hiring someone that was > >> formerly unemployed or employed below a subsitance level). If I had taken > >> those jobs I would have had saved them more money and fulfilled enough > >> Quotas to make it worth their while to hire me and not have me to anything. > >> The assumption that I resented was that I *would* do nothing. And, being > >> above all an arrogant Techer, that angered me enough after a cursory > >> questioning of my supposed soon-to-be boss to say to the face of the > >> employment manager that I was not going to take their job and why. > > >Similar situations happen in colleges and universities. The emphasis nowadays > >is on `enrollment and retention', a euphamism for admitting as many targeted- > >group students as possible, then making sure that they stay as long as > >possible. This means discouraging them from taking difficult courses or > >majors (so they don't flunk out) and getting them to take a lesser number of > >courses per semester/quarter (so they graduate in 5 or 6 instead of the > >usual 4 years; such a 5 year student counts 5/4 as much as a 4 year student > >in figuring quotas). > > You're talking about the children of the rich and famous right? You > mean like kids with last names like "Rockefeller" and "Watson" right? It applies to them as well. See below. > > I won't even start on what's been going on with James D. Watson's > son at Prep school -- one that he wouldn't have gotten into without > Dr. Daddy's big name. All I have to say is that it serves the guy > right to have his son screw up so badly after what he did to > Rosie Franklin. There is justice after all. What did he do? This sounds interesting. > > >The result is that the really well qualified student > >who would have gotten in and succeeded anyway to feel inferior because of > >his/her race/sex. The presence of a large number of `quota admits' lowers > >the college community's perception of the student's race/sex, thus causing > >others to see him/her less favorably than a student from a non-targeted > >group. > > Let's throw in socioeconomic status and let the word "race" mean WHITE > and "sex" mean MALE. Honey, I've seen some *DUMB* WHITE BOYS around the > IVYS, I mean DUMB. And the reason they need that OLD BOY SHIT is that > they need daddy daddy and uncle so-and-so around to make them look good, > and to power-muscle other people away who would make their darling > WHITE BOY look bad. > > Says one woman to another at the polo arena: > > "He has no right to look so dumb. He's not *that* rich!" > > >Those who are the actual `quota admits' would face the same prejudice, > >but also would likely receive an education of marginal value (the easiest > >major and course selection). > > Spoken like a true white boy. > > > Cheryl WHat I was really talking about was that colleges and universites often have ulterior motives when they are considering minority students in admission, etc. Admitting and retaining more minority students increases a public college's image in a state legislature, so a college will go out of its way to admit them. Its interests are not the minority students themselves, but with their PR with the state legislatures (only applies to public colleges, but that is what I was originally referring to). As for the rich dumsh!ts who get into prestigious colleges, well there is also an ulterior motive: very generous family and alumni (assuming the rich dumsh!t actually graduates) contributions. And to add another example, how about revenue producing athletes? Surely they aren't held to the same standards everyone else is. Their benefit to the institution should be obvious; they are only there for that reason, not because the school thinks they will flower into honor students. All of these students face similar situations: all are there because of ulterior motives, not because the school thinks they are late bloomers or whatever; all are minorities* within the school; all are seen as boneheads by their fellow students; most don't derive much academic benefit. *I don't mean RACIAL minorities, I mean NUMERICAL minorities.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/29/86)
In article <665@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP writes: > >Oh really. So if teachers and faculties, (by dint of discriminatory >treatment of their students) produce only white males who are "qualified" then >discrimination is *fair* and no outcry is to be raised against unfair >educational practices (such as requiring female students to be teaching >assistants for four years of graduate study then claiming that "it's their >fault" when little research progress is made, while giving research jobs >and important scientific problems to their male students...). No, it is *not* fair, and something should be done about it! But when an employer hires the most qualified applicant that is *not* discrimination, and should not be treated as such. It is time we started addressing the real problem rather than trying to eliminate the late stage symptoms(like unequal employment). I believe that it is in fact in the area of education and social structure during early childhood that the real problem *and* solution lies. More effort needs to be spent providing a proper environment for individual developement from early life on. Better schools for inner cities would help, as would better preparation of teachers to handle people in non-stereotyped ways. The more attention paid to such things, the better off various "minority" groups will be in the future. But instead of applying our resources to source level fixes, which necessarily have a delayed pay-off, we are putiing these resources into symptomatic patches that have short term, apparently beneficial, effects, but do not really address the real problem. > >If you read the original article, you would know that we started off >discussing the influence of culture and teacher's attitudes on the >performance and interests of students. > Perhaps we should get back to that, as that *is* the real problem. I think an interesting question would be: What steps can be taken both as individuals and as a society to combat inappropriate influences of this kind? Actually, I would carry it further than the higher education aspect that was originally brought up, this kind of biasing in education starts *far* earlier than college.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/29/86)
The signature for my last posting was supposed to be:
------
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/30/86)
When I was in the M.S. program at Caltech I found that one group of men had formed a clique and never talked to me or to the other American woman in our class. At first I thought it was male chauvinism. Then as the year went on I got the picture. We had take-home tests in which we were supposed to stop and draw a line under our work after the first hour. I did this, and I was not exactly getting straight A's for it. However, these men were consistently coming in with graphs neatly drawn with a ruler, and work which I doubt could have been done in one hour (or alone). I very strongly suspected that these men's cliquishness existed in order to hide violations of the Caltech honor system. In fact, two other men had telephoned me during a take-home final to ask me for information, and I had to report to the professor that an incident of cheating had occurred (luckily I did not have to report the names, I think the professor could tell who it was). In the first class I mentioned, I mentioned to the professor that I thought some of the papers couldn't have been completed in an hour, but he didn't take the matter seriously enough to try to investigate it. In classes without take-home exams, I found that the men were not getting better grades. I have later run into professional situations in which, at first, I thought I was being excluded because of being female, but later, I found out that the group of men was engaging in unehtical, if not dishonest, behavior. One woman I know was accepted into such a group after she did several things to show that she was one of them and could act as just as badly. Unfortunately, she believed she was being "sophisticated" and businesslike.
rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (07/30/86)
In article <12515@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: >When I was in the M.S. program at Caltech I found that one group of >men had formed a clique and never talked to me or to the other >American woman in our class. > [...] > I very strongly suspected that >these men's cliquishness existed in order to hide violations of the >Caltech honor system. > [...] > One woman I know was accepted into such a group >after she did several things to show that she was one of them and could >act as just as badly. This is not a MALE or primarily male thing. Cheating is a HUMAN thing as your last example shows. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob " " !psu-cs!vetterr "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
vis@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Tom Courtney) (07/31/86)
In article <770@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <326@encore.UUCP> mikes@encore.UUCP ( Mike Skrzypczak) writes: >>In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >>>In AP Chemistry in High School, there were only two men to demonstrate >>>ability in front of. One other student and the teacher. All the rest ... >>> Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >>>got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >>>buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >>>easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >>>he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. We let up on ourselves >>>once we had driven him out. The other one was just a masochist and a >>>martyr so it didn't work on him. >> >>Cheryl: >> Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? > >We just wanted to see if we could do it. Certain men had tried exactly the >same tactics on us when it came to taking the top-tracked math courses and >AP Chem. They made our job pretty easy for us. When they came around >telling us *not* to take AP Chem, we just agreed with them that they were >perfectly right, and then told them that they shouldn't take it either if >they felt that way. It was more a case of holding up a mirror to the game >they had started, rather than starting up a game of our own making. > >> I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making >> the AP Chem class mostly women was. > >The advantage to us was not having to suffer the male-vs.-female >game-playing that goes on in such a course. It was either us or them. >We decided that we would rather have it be us. I went to a small private school where there were the traditional added burdens on girls to succeed that boys didn't have: there was pressure to prove that they indeed belonged there, usually (not always) applied by the parents. Tactics such as those described above were common by both genders. When I was a junior, a peculiar thing happened. I was in a calculus class with two other girls. They attempted the same freeze-out technique. It didn't work worth a damn, because I hate to lose out in anything. I escalated. They escalated. Seemed like they didn't like to lose either. Interim results: we all learned a great deal of calculus, and decided to take an intro to analysis course at SUNY/Buffalo the next year. Looking at the results 10+ years later, I am more impressed: Joanna became rich and famous at Apple Computers, Tahl recently got her Phd in Physics, and I'm a programmer at computer heaven, doing exactly what I want to do. I learned a bunch from the experience: 1) getting pushed farther than you normally would go has a bunch of value; 2) mathematics is a worthwhile endeavor; 3) if everyone involved is sufficiently pigheaded, adverserial relations break down after a while. >> I applaud you for encouraging more females to take the course >> (I think it is overrated as to difficulty (I found AP Physics >> E&M harder)). I would applaud you more if you had encouraged >> more people to take the course. > >You did? Sorry to hear that. We had to put up with men there. I guess >they just couldn't stand the idea of women taking over. > Wow, what a mild response. Michael, can you explain why you found it neccesary to do the damning with faint praise routine? I found achievement test Russian to be harder than either AP Chemistry or Physics (I did lousy in it too: losing out in Russian was one of the big reasons why I came to hate losing in general). Your comment does nothing but belittle the achievement of anyone who got through Chemistry successfully.
mikes@encore.UUCP ( Mike Skrzypczak) (07/31/86)
In article <770@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >>Cheryl: >> Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? > >We just wanted to see if we could do it. Certain men had tried exactly the >same tactics on us when it came to taking the top-tracked math courses and >AP Chem. They made our job pretty easy for us. When they came around >telling us *not* to take AP Chem, we just agreed with them that they were >perfectly right, and then told them that they shouldn't take it either if >they felt that way. It was more a case of holding up a mirror to the game >they had started, rather than starting up a game of our own making. > You ought to explain these things in the beginning as they actually happened, instead of saying "we forced them out". Its sounds like in the original posting [did I miss some important background information/posting that might have clarified this] that you actively forced men out for just the sake of it. Here it looks like they really convinced themselves not to take it. >> I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making >> the AP Chem class mostly women was. > >The advantage to us was not having to suffer the male-vs.-female >game-playing that goes on in such a course. It was either us or them. >We decided that we would rather have it be us. What male-female game playing are you talking about? Could you please expand on the academic atmosphere there? Why was it "us or them"? I would like to know how you come to your conclusions. > >Politics ain't pretty, but it's the >way things work. We proved that. Why should we have to put up >with people in the course who don't *really* want to be there? I >mean, if they *really* wanted to be there, they wouldn't have let >us talk them out of it so easily. > True, politics are not pretty. Politics are generally not fair or equal. I am glad you recognize that the world works this way. Now you won't bitch when you end up on the short end of the stick, since this is the way the world is ;-). > >> I also do not understand >> why one of the males dropped the course just because you said >> it was easy and worked your buttocks off at the problem sets. > >Actually, he was the one who started complaining about how hard the work >was, perhaps making a feeble attempt at baiting us into feeling similarly >overworked. I caught one woman giving into it, and promptly winked at >her and said "Nah, it's not *that* hard. Just takes a little concentration >and perseverance, right Sue?" Then she realized that it was the *effort* >she was complaining about, not the difficulty of the problem set. The >guy, being of weaker character continued to blame the difficulty of the >problem sets, and dropped out. We merely took advantage of his weakness. > "Took advantage of his weakness". I thought taking advantage of people was not a good thing to do. Oh yeah, this is politics.I guess its ok then ;-). >> Why is a person who stays in AP Chemistry a martyr and a masochist? >> Is it just because you tried to force him out the class? > >Yeah, probably, but I decided to call him a martyr and a masochist -- >because that's what women are called when they devote themselves to >a course of study. Just trying to illustrate a point. > Who calls women martyrs and masochists? Please support this statement. What point are you trying to illustrate? Awaiting your reply... Michael Skrzypczak
sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) (08/02/86)
In article <2274@ihlpg.UUCP> kapa@ihlpg.UUCP (Perkins) writes: >> In article <719@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >> >[...] This was partly my doing. I went around socially to everybody who >> >had taken AP Biology and the top-tracked math course in Sophomore year, >> >and encouraged the women to take AP Chemistry ("Aw, it won't be that hard. >> >I'm taking it. That means it will be *fun*" [I was also the class clown]) >> >and discouraged the men from taking AP Chemistry ("It will be easier to >> >get an A in Reagents chemistry. And besides, if you take AP Chemistry >> >now, they'll place you in sophomore-level Chem when you get to college, >> >and you might not be prepared for it. I'm not taking AP chem, No-Sir-ee." >> > [...] >> > Actually, it started out with 8 women and 2 men, but we women >> >got one of the men to drop out by (a) intimidating him by working our >> >buts off on the first few homework sets and pretending the material was >> >easy and (b) telling him that if he had to work that hard to keep up with us, >> >he'd probably be "HAPPIER" in Reagents' Chemistry. >> >Cheryl >> Why did you find it important to drive people out of AP Chemistry? >> I honestly do not understand what the advantage of making >> the AP Chem class mostly women was. I also do not understand >> why one of the males dropped the course just because you said >> it was easy and worked your buttocks off at the problem sets. >> >> Why is a person who stays in AP Chemistry a martyr and a masochist? >> Is it just because you tried to force him out the class? >> Maybe he saw through the bullshit and understood that he was there >> to learn chemistry, and not to match his own course performance >> with yours. >> >> I applaud you for encouraging more females to take the course >> (I think it is overrated as to difficulty (I found AP Physics >> E&M harder)). I would applaud you more if you had encouraged >> more people to take the course. >> Michael Skrzypczak > >Another example of something that when men do it, it is sexist; >when women do it, it expresses solidarity. What is it exactly that men do? In our high school, we tried to ENCOURAGE more women to take the honors courses; we wanted more females in the class because we enjoyed being around them, and we wanted to date them (when you are one of the upper 30 people in a class of 683, you date too much). As it turned out, about two-fifths of the people we women. -- Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob (and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)
sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders) (08/02/86)
In article <771@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <670@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: >>face it Cheryl, you just hate men on principle. no exceptions. > >You just don't like seeing the subtler games men play to keep women down >exposed in such a ruthless fashion. I don't hate men. I'm just able >to see through their games. I find half-heartedly refreshing to see women (really anybody) behave like this. I don't like it when it knowingly happens to me, but when I see it happen to someone else, I am ammused. (no comment on spelling, it Friday..) Except for her harshest statements, I don't really see that Cheryl hates men, after all she does point out the she dates them and has fun with them. What she does do is to play devious activities on other people. I grew up with a group of girls in our neighborhood (7 of them) where I was only one of two guys in the same age group. They were just like Cheryl (at least by her postings), only this was SEVEN of them. It was fun to listen to all of the stuff they would plan out against other people (usually me or some guys in another addition). They wouldn't worry about me overhearing them on the bus home, because they considered me only one weird guy who didn't much matter anyway (I still don't, but oh well :-) ) It was not like they hated guys; they justed liked to have fun and pray upon anybody's weaknesses -- they guys usually had more weaknesses and were easier to pray upon. Eventually, because I had a car (I worked two or three jobs at the same time in high school), and because I liked playing things on other people as well, they sometimes hung around me, either to exploit what I was willing to (I was the one who go up to a house and do things like cut the phone wire and put a tape deck to it), or ignore me when they did something and let me tag along. We did physical things to a lot of people, but what was most fun was to play games with their minds -- ie. politics. We would tell them something that was false, but slanted in their view, and someone the same thing but slanted in the othe view, and sure enough, we could get these people to do (almost) whatever we wanted. It was fun (and still is -- ever BSed a project to the way YOU wanted?) - bob -- Continuing Engineering Education Telecommunications Purdue University ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!pc-ecn!sandersr Let's make like a BSD process, and go FORK-OFF !! -- bob (and "make" a few children while we're at it ...)
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/03/86)
> > We did physical things to a lot of people, but what was most fun was to > play games with their minds -- ie. politics. We would tell them something > that was false, but slanted in their view, and someone the same thing but > slanted in the othe view, and sure enough, we could get these people to do > (almost) whatever we wanted. It was fun (and still is -- ever BSed a > project to the way YOU wanted?) > - bob No. And it's not because I couldn't figure out how to do it if I wanted to. I may be an idealistic wimp, but I find the above-displayed attitude despicable. To play games with people's minds because you think it's fun, to pick on the weak, reveals what I consider to be major character flaws: sadism, and love of power for its own sake. Now, since it is Cheryl's posting Bob and I are talking about, I have some questions for her: Is the point of your story about convincing the men not to take AP Physics that men often use the same tactics against women? Are you trying to get some men to understand what it's like to have the shoe on the other foot? Are you glad that you did what you did, and managed to get a bunch of men out of the class? Or are you simply relating something you did when you were young, without trying to indicate pride? Do you agree or disagree with Bob's attitude that playing mind games with people is a good way of having fun? (Note: I am not asking whether it is a legitimate way of accomplishing political goals. That is another question. If you wish to answer it, go ahead, but please answer the other one, too.) Do you wish to be identified with Bob's position? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gds@sri-spam.ARPA (The lost Bostonian) (08/07/86)
What Cheryl did reminds me of some things some of my college classmates used to tell me, that computer science was too hard, the professors were prejudiced and favored white males, that white males had access to old exams, that computer science was too nebulous a subject (and best to stick to something more tangible, like EE). The strange thing was that it was coming from other blacks! Their attitude came from a lack of understanding what makes a person want to go into computer science (most of my black friends who liked math in high school became EE's) and a lack of information on the CS curriculum (the first few classes are weed-out types and lots of blacks at my undergrad got weeded out, scared, and tried to talk their classmates out of it also, to *save* them from suffering). (One of the sad things about this situation was that the minority education office did little to encourage more blacks to go into computer science, and were in part responsible for the discouragement.) I was foolish enough to listen for three years, including once when I switched majors to EE (actually I never took anything like a semiconductor or E&M course so I don't know how much I wouldn't have liked it, but a semester without my hands on computers was enough to make me realize what I was missing). I did my best while an undergraduate to encourage other black students I knew who were interested in computer science but unsure about studying it. I also tried to get black women interested also. One of them became the president of our black EE/CS society. In general, I think I did a lot to promote good feelings in blacks about the undergraduate major in computer science. If I had had that kind of encouragement in my earlier undergrad years I could have turned out a much better student. --gregbo
herbie@polaris.UUCP (08/08/86)
In article <771@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >Yes, as a matter of fact I am. We all got together on it, on an informal >basis of course. Old girls. We didn't make it impossible to even take >the class by asking that men be explicitly denied spots (the way women >couldn't attend Dartmouth in the 60's, the way women, including Marie >Curie were explicitly barred from the French Academy of Sciences....) so instead you turn the tables and give some poor innocent man or two a dose of the medicine women have been receiving all along right? they had it coming to them, didn't they, being male scum? see Cheryl, i can be as ridiculous as you too. >We merely took advantage of their own weaknesses to push things in the >direction which suited us. It's called "POLITICS". When it comes to >men doing this to women, then women finding themselves less qualified >for certain jobs later on in life and therefore being kept out of them, >it's called "ONLY FAIR"! Of course I'm proud to prove how easily peoples' >interests and achievements are influenced by their social environment. wrong. what you did is not politics. it is called sexism: discrimination against a person solely on the basis of sex. you are just as bad as the men you rant and rave about. only one difference, you do it because it makes you feel good. most men do it because they are ignorant. >Are you PROUD to work for a company that invented the female >keypunch operator, not to mention promoting typing as "womens' >work" ? I mean, these are cases where no historical precedent >was set (anyone who even *touched* computers were men, and >secretaries were originally men-in-training for management positions), >and yet, IBM saw the labor pool of women and took advantage of >it in the worst way possible. Just thought I'd point that out. this burns me. instead of somewhat calm discussion of why you aren't as bad as the sexist males you hate so much, you switch to personal attacks and change the subject so no-one will realize that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. your "facts" are all wrong. you chose the wrong person to spout psuedo-history to. i am a student of computer history and i have a LARGE set of archives of the history of IBM and other computer companies to back me up on this one. the true facts are like this: Herman Hollerith is the inventor of the punched card and card punch machine as we know it today. John Shaw Billings was Director of Vital Statistics for the Census Bureau during the 1870 census and the resources available to tabulate all the data collected was just barely adequate even with a crude mechanical tabulator. Billings saw a crisis approaching for the 1880 census and was looking for ideas to help him get the job done in time. Hollerith was working in the Patent Office at the time and knew Billings as a personal friend. Billings, who knew that Hollerith was an engineer and inventor, asked Hollerith if he knew of a way to solve the problem because analyzing the data for the 1870 census had taken some 5 years to process and the 1880 was estimated to take about 7 years using then current technology. the situation for 1890 looked worse and all indications were that it would take at least 11 years. it was during discussions with Billings that the notion of punched cards came up. Hollerith was familiar with the Jacquard loom which by then had been in use for about 100 years. for the next few years, nothing more came of this conversation. then, in 1882, Hollerith was asked to join the faculty of mechanical engineering at MIT as an instructor. it was there that Hollerith began working on the data collection and processing problem he discussed with Billings. the result of this is that Hollerith invented the punched card as we know it today and the punches to go with it. but still, Hollerith had the only working model in the world. the 1890 census was just around the corner and to become slightly successful, he had to land a contract to be the tabulator for the census to make the machine a reality. the punched card and electric card puncher was patented by Hollerith in 1884 and in 1886, successfully passed a field trial in conducting the census for the city of Baltimore. based on these and other trials, the health departments of New York and New Jersy placed orders for Hollerith tabulators to track mortality statistics. the inquiries were so many, in fact, that Hollerith realized quite quickly that he could not keep up with demand even if he did lose the contract for the 1890 census. in 1889, he was awarded three more patents and acclaim from the scientific business world. in 1890, in competition with the machine from Hunt and Pidgin, Hollerith's machines significantly outperformed his competition's and he won the contract. keyboard keypunch production was subcontracted to Pratt and Whitney while the electrical parts for the tabulators were manufactured by Western Electric. the 1890 census was a huge success, taking about half the time for twice the cost. Robert Porter, Superintendant of the Census noted that although the rental of Hollerith machines cost $750,000, about $5 million in labor costs were saved. machines were quickly bought by Austria, Canada, and Italy. by 1895, card sales for census purposes alone reached the 100 million mark. by 1908, Hollerith was selling about 1 million cards per month to some thirty different industrial concerns while maintaining his government business. despite this, Hollerith's company, Tabulating Machine, was in serious financial trouble. overconfident of himself and having competitors for the 1910 census resulted in loss of the 1910 contract. in 1910, a profitable manufacturer of timing devices, a struggling operation of slicers and scales, and an interesting but aging firm of that made electric tabulators was merged together by one Charles Flint under the name Computing-Tabulating-Recording. Hollerith's company formed the Computing part of the name. in 1913, Thomas J. Watson Sr. joined CTR as general manager. why this history lesson? CTR eventually became IBM and dropped a few things along the way including the clock, scales, and slicer business. the card punch and key punch operator was an established part of the way large industry and government kept track of things for more than 10 years before any entity even slightly recognizable as IBM existed. the legions of keypunch operators worked for the government on the census. the private concerns that used keypunch operators did so for their own internal record keeping. Herman Hollerith, at first, and then James Powers, created a machine that allowed people to do their work faster and with more accuracy. IBM did not. promoting the idea that keypunching was women's work? if you review the history in a little more detail, you will find that Herman Hollerith was so busy during the first few years figuring out how to sort his cards that he barely even had time to show it to anyone else, let alone think of selling them. he was doing a favor for a friend and working on an interesting problem at the same time. getting the census contract was a way of paying for all the time he spent. by the time Hollerith had enough time for a little showmanship, the census bureau had established in their work force thousands of women to mark up and sort the cards in the proper way and file them for the analysts. the women who ran the keypunches were the ones who would have filed the papers and did the card sorting in the previous census. as for the huge labor pool that was tapped for keypunch operators: well for one thing most of the earliest census workers were single women with no skills and no way to earn money to support themselves. have you wondered why families at the turn of the century were so anxious to marry off their daughters? with no employable skills and no suitable place to work other than the various mills, office work was a godsend, even if it meant no difference in pay because it meant that young single women had an acceptable place to work and could contribute some of their income to support the family. more importantly it gave reasonably educated women (for the time) an opportunity to see what they could really accomplish. there became an environment for the organization of women into groups to lobby for womens rights. one of the first tangible results of intelligent young women entering the workforce in droves was the winning of the right for women to vote. it also gave the more conservative men and women of the time concrete proof that the woman's place was not the home and that skilled jobs were within reach. with their newfound financial freedom (as compared to before), women found that they wanted more. this is the other side of the story. it was no coincidence that giving women the vote followed closely the opening of the office to women, even if the tasks were menial. >You just don't like seeing the subtler games men play to keep women down >exposed in such a ruthless fashion. I don't hate men. I'm just able >to see through their games. it's just a mass conspiracy and we men know all these tricks to keep women in their place. devious things like pretending to support women's rights when we're really working to gain the confidence of women so that we can destroy them when they are most vulnerable; things like marrying them, saddling them with kids and then leaving them; things like educating them just enough to understand that they are second class citizens and then kicking them out of schools; things like loving them and leaving them; things like telling them that without a penis, you're a nothing. you're just too clever for us Cheryl. we're going have to eliminate you for this. otherwise, maybe other women will start thinking on their own and get some stupid ideas like equal rights and all that. we can't have that, can we, men? >Did you know that when IBM puts these addresses on business cards, >they're using the ARPA INTERNET (paid for by TAXPAYERS) for their >OWN business purposes? The use of USENET (paid for by the individual >sites) for business purposes is a faux-pas, but the use of ARPANET >like this is ILLEGAL. Just thought I'd point that out. batcomputer.cornell.edu is on ARPA. so is DEC.COM, sun.COM, xerox.COM, att.COM, and a few others. these companies and IBM pay substantial funds to be connected to ARPA; funds which are derived from people paying money for the products manufactured by these companies unlike educational institutions which get money from ARPA and ultimately the taxpayer to pay for their connections. posting from batcomputer is using a DARPA funded network AND computer for personal purposes. i should think that if what i'm doing is illegal, then what you're doing is twice as illegal. no-one is under any obligation to send me mail on my ARPA address and those that chose to will almost invariably be on the ARPA network in the first place. on top of which is the fact that this machine i post from is only connected to USENET via a dialup line which we pay for. subtlety was never your strong point Cheryl, and personal attacks do nothing for your credibility and does not forward the cause of womens rights. all it does is get a lot of people angry with you. (but i forgot, it's all a conspiracy.) since you chose to make unsubstantiated and untrue statements about me and my employer in a public forum, i am bound to defend myself and my employer in public. Herb Chong, IBM Research... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie%ibm.com@csnet-relay ARPA: herbie@ibm.com, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.