regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/03/86)
>>We all know many aspects of today's stereotypical roles suck the big one, >>but don't we also see some light, some change? If we give up on marriage >>the institution will die, wouldn't it better to redefine societies >>expectations of marriage? (Peter Barbee) > > Which societies are we going to change first? The DAR? > SO's career (and of course your only source of livelihood > . . .etc. . . How would you like it > if your faculty advisor at University of Chicago assumed > you were *not* serious about making a career of your research, > just because you happened to be married? . . .etc. > (Cheryl Stewart) Well, I can say that I usually agree with Cheryl (I've been in similar situations) and that I don't particularly like her posting style lately (though I make the same mistakes in mine) BUT These questions (above, both posters) are interesting. I've given up on the institution of marriage. I won't ever be married again. I have two children, one by the man I'll probably spend a good deal of the rest of my life with, and one by my former husband whom my current SO is trying to adopt. We are not married, and won't ever be. I've given up for a number of reasons, some of which Cheryl posted in her response. People have so much to deal with in their lives that the first thing they try to do is pigeonhole other people into convenient frames of reference. This is no crime, it is a survival technique. However, the pigeonhole of "married" for a woman contains all kinds of assumptions that don't apply in my case, but were applied to me when I was married. Because I signed a legal document that changed my marital status under the law, suddenly: I was not a good candidate for jobs I was not a good candidate for friendships I was not a "serious" student I did not have separate opinions I could not make plans independently These are the assumptions that OTHERS made about ME, and never bothered to test. When I got a divorce, and resumed my life as a single parent, suddenly none of these assumptions were applied to me anymore. So, tho my relationship with my SO contains most of the components of a good marriage, we will not be married, since society's flood of expectations and judgements are harmful, inaccurate in our case, and pervasive. One problematical side-effect: My SO is trying to adopt my eldest daughter. There is no contention from my former husband. Yet the Dept of Social Services recommends to the court not to allow the adoption because we are not married. This, frankly, is laughable. In the first place, it doesn't have any consistancy with divorce law (when you divorce, the court recog- nises the separate relationships of wife-husband and parent-child and provides for them). Yet, according to the Dept of Social Services, there is no separation -- if Jon wants to be Megan's daddy, he also has to become Mr. Regard. Also, the ruling determinant is supposed to be "the good of the child". I just can't see how the "good of the child" is served by refusing her adoption of a man who is willing to support her, lives with her as a daddy, fixes her sack lunches for school, fer chrissake, over the parenthood of a father who does not support her (in violation of a court order) and is anxious to be relieved of the responsibility of her existance. If anything happened to me, the absent father who doesn't want her would have more rights to custody than the man who has been her acting father for 3 years, and who wants her. We'd appeal the judgement, but we can't afford it right now. How much are your principles worth? Well, with a new baby, mine top out before $10,000, which is what it might run us to challenge the ruling. Maybe when I'm rolling in dough. . .in the meantime -- for the good of the child -- we will have to settle for legal guardianship so that he can at least authorize medical care for her and has a fighting chance if I go phutt in the night. I'd love to change society, Cheryl, Peter, but it's too expensive for me. Adrienne Regard
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (02/04/86)
In article <125@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > > I have two >children, one by the man I'll probably spend a good deal of the rest of my >life with, and one by my former husband whom my current SO is trying to >adopt. We are not married, and won't ever be. > I don't understand...why would your current SO want to adopt your former husband? What?? Oh, that's different....nevermind.... -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (02/06/86)
In article <125@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >One problematical side-effect: My SO is trying to adopt my eldest daughter. >There is no contention from my former husband. Yet the Dept of Social >Services recommends to the court not to allow the adoption because we are >not married. This, frankly, is laughable. In the first place, it doesn't >have any consistancy with divorce law (when you divorce, the court recog- >nises the separate relationships of wife-husband and parent-child and >provides for them). Yet, according to the Dept of Social Services, there >is no separation -- if Jon wants to be Megan's daddy, he also has to become >Mr. Regard. > >Adrienne Regard Why not marry the guy, adopt the daughter, then divorce the guy. Marriages and divorces are a lot cheaper than court battles if they are mutually agreed upon. Unless of course, the divorce would further monkey with the 'parent' status of your SO and your daughter, have you looked into it? If this works, you could then thumb your nose at the stupid adoption system. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/07/86)
In article <125@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >I've given up for a number of reasons, some of which Cheryl posted in her >response. People have so much to deal with in their lives that the first >thing they try to do is pigeonhole other people into convenient frames of >reference. This is no crime, it is a survival technique. However, the >pigeonhole of "married" for a woman contains all kinds of assumptions that >don't apply in my case, but were applied to me when I was married. Because >I signed a legal document that changed my marital status under the law, >suddenly: > > I was not a good candidate for jobs > I was not a good candidate for friendships > I was not a "serious" student > I did not have separate opinions > I could not make plans independently > CORRECT. *AND* if you are single, never married, all of the same above assumptions are made -- because people *expect* that you will someday be a *married* woman. Now these are general blind stupid assumptions made by blind stupid people, BUT there are many NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, competitive young women because bright, competitive young wome threaten male dominance in general, and bright competitive young women threaten *them* and *their* *male* *buddies* in particular. I know what the response will be already -- the men will (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid', and the women will say, "hey, yeah, I see that going on all the time! what can we do about it" Cheryl
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/09/86)
> BUT there are many > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > competitive young women because bright, competitive > young wome threaten male dominance in general This is a crock. Yes, I'll call you paranoid, but it does not "serve" me to do so. What this really is is sexism and stereotyping, exactly the same thing I hear you complaining so bitterly against when practiced by men. Listen to yourself. You are putting all men into a class based on their gender. If that isn't sexism, I don't know what is. If you want to create a non-sexist world (a goal I am 100% for, because believe it or not society also has expectations about what a MAN should or shouldn't do, some of which I find as objectionable as you apparently do those about women) you could start by not practicing it yourself. I think you are giving a lot of ignorant jerks a lot more credit than they deserve. This whole notion that all men deliberately subjogate all women is ridiculous, and propogating it only serves to give the few who really *are* trying to dominate an "excuse" to do so. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (02/10/86)
> >However, the > >pigeonhole of "married" for a woman contains all kinds of assumptions that > >don't apply in my case, but were applied to me when I was married. Because > >I signed a legal document that changed my marital status under the law, > >suddenly: > > > > I was not a good candidate for jobs > > I was not a good candidate for friendships > > I was not a "serious" student > > I did not have separate opinions > > I could not make plans independently > > > > CORRECT. *AND* if you are single, never married, > all of the same above assumptions are made -- because > people *expect* that you will someday be a *married* > woman. Now these are general blind stupid assumptions > made by blind stupid people, BUT there are many > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > competitive young women because bright, competitive > young women threaten male dominance in general, and > bright competitive young women threaten *them* and > *their* *male* *buddies* in particular. I know > what the response will be already -- the men will > (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid', and the > women will say, "hey, yeah, I see that going on all > the time! what can we do about it" > > Cheryl Well... I think Cheryl has a good point. Some stupid men think that women (married and unmarried) aren't good for much. Some other men act as if they believe the same thing because it "keeps women in their place". I have no idea of the proportions or numbers because I have never had to deal with it first hand. I do know that I have seen men in positions of authority treat women this way, and have talked to women who have had to deal with it. So what do we do about it? Each person who agrees that women should not be judged as poor candidates for jobs, etc. because of their marital status (or assumptions about their future marital status) could stand up for his or her beliefs by telling men that they're wrong when we see them acting this way. I doubt that this would be very effective, though. It would be like telling a "good ole boy" in Mississippi ca. 1960 that he was being naughty when he refused to serve black people in his establishment (that *doesn't* mean one shouldn't do it). How does one promote social change in most of these areas, then? There are already laws against job discrimination against women, so the best thing to do is to try to elect candidates who will enforce these laws (Reagan was a bad choice). The other areas (friendships, being taken seriously as a student, respect for separate opinions, respect for womens' abilities to make independent plans) involve cultural assumptions that can't be legislated away. Maybe the best thing would be a media campaign. I've never organized anything bigger than a birthday party, so I have no idea how one would go about it. Ideas? -- 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
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (02/10/86)
In article <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > ... BUT there are many > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > competitive young women because bright, competitive > young wome threaten male dominance in general, and > bright competitive young women threaten *them* and > *their* *male* *buddies* in particular. I know > what the response will be already -- the men will > (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid' ... If you know how we men are going to respond already, why bother posting at all? Your stereotyping of men as oppressive creeps is as unfair as any stereotype, whether you're talking about women, blacks, Chicanos, Italian-Americans, Jews, or whatever. I demand the same courtesy you demand as a human being: to be treated as an individual with an individual's shortcomings and strengths, not as a cardboard stereotype. What makes you think all feminists are women? Please note that in the above passage you say "...THE MEN will ... call me 'paranoid' ..." You don't say "some men," or "many men," or even "most men." The implication is clearly that ALL men fit your stereotype. If you intended to imply something else by this posting, please let us know. -- Bill Ingogly
gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (02/10/86)
In article <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > > I know > what the response will be already -- the men will > (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid', and the > women will say, "hey, yeah, I see that going on all > the time! what can we do about it" That's just because it's all a subversive plot and we're all against you. We've all come to realize that Cheryl is the only one who *really* knows what's going on in our (men's) sick, twisted little minds. The only thing we can do now is eliminate Cheryl and hope she hasn't spread the truth too far. We're gonna get you Cheryl. You can't hide...our people are every- where... Gregg Mackenzie cisden!gmack
asimov@degas.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Daniel &) (02/11/86)
When the question of prejudice comes up, a certain paradox comes to mind which I believe is a very real problem. I have been in a recent incarnation a college math teacher. My experience after about 10 years in that role is that male students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics, really gung-ho over the subject matter. I personally am very pleased whenever I find an exception to this trend. Nevertheless, if I meet a random student for the first time, I have an internal guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's sex. I don't feel guilty about that, because I don't think that it interferes with my ability to treat each student as an individual anyhow. And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I wanted to: it's based on experience. In a recent conversation with a good friend, I mentioned this experience of mine, of differing probabilities, and she reacted as though I had just proved myself to be the most blatant male chauvinist. In fact, she hasn't even answered my communications since that conversation. Is the best solution to simply stay off these controversial topics entirely? I'd like tho think that there's a better solution. Has anyone else grappled with the murky region between experience and prejudice, and found a good way to deal with it? --Daz
dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/11/86)
In article <1951@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > I think you are giving a lot of ignorant jerks a lot more credit than they >deserve. This whole notion that all men deliberately subjogate all women >is ridiculous, and propogating it only serves to give the few who really >*are* trying to dominate an "excuse" to do so. "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." Diane Holt INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. (east coast:) ihnp4!ima!ism780!dianeh (west coast:) decvax!vortex!ism780!dianeh "Thug say he going to make *gravel* angel." --The Far Side
wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (02/12/86)
In article <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > CORRECT. *AND* if you are single, never married, > all of the same above assumptions are made -- because > people *expect* that you will someday be a *married* > woman. Now these are general blind stupid assumptions > made by blind stupid people, BUT there are many > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > competitive young women because bright, competitive > young wome threaten male dominance in general, and > bright competitive young women threaten *them* and > *their* *male* *buddies* in particular. I know > what the response will be already -- the men will > (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid', and the > women will say, "hey, yeah, I see that going on all > the time! what can we do about it" And then, some of us will say that that only affects women who permit other peoples' definitions to control their lives. As a fully qualified woman (8-)), I've encountered folks with that attitude. None of them, after revealing their stupid blindness, have continued to benefit from my considerable abilities. So if you want to be a victim, go ahead. And if not, don't hang out with blind-stupids or insecure men. There are enough of the other sort around to provide me with friends and employers. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits> !SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/12/86)
In article <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> asimov@degas.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Daz) writes: > > When the question of prejudice comes up, a certain paradox >comes to mind which I believe is a very real problem... >My experience after about 10 years in that role is that male >students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics,... >if I meet a random student for the first time, I have an internal >guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's >chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's sex. First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "a certain paradox". What is it? My dictionary defines "prejudice" as: a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable, or more usually, unfavorable.--Syn. bias. You've said that, based on your acculumation of experience, you prejudice your opinion of new students based on their sex, so where's the "paradox"? Are you trying to imply that, since you feel it's an accurate preconceived notion, it is a legitimate prejudice, and the paradox lies in that conclusion? >I don't feel guilty about that, because I don't think that it interferes >with my ability to treat each student as an individual anyhow. You don't *think* it interferes, but how can you be sure? Do you think there's a possibility that *your* initial lack of enthusiasm toward your female students might be projected and, therefore, their level of enthusiasm towards your class might initially be diminished? I find it very difficult to believe that if you set yourself up with the notion, "Here's the new crop of students -- chances are the girls won't really care too much." that it's not going to have an effect on how you approach them. >And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I wanted to: >it's based on experience. You *can* make it go away. You tell yourself, "I will approach each new student as an *individual* -- period -- from the very beginning and see how far they want to go." Saying you can't change it means you never will. As long as you hold onto that prophecy, it will continue to be self-fulfilled. > In a recent conversation with a good friend, I mentioned this >experience of mine, of differing probabilities, and she reacted as though >I had just proved myself to be the most blatant male chauvinist. In fact, >she hasn't even answered my communications since that conversation. Well, your friend may have overreacted somewhat, and refusing to discuss the issue with you certainly won't help matters, but I can understand her reaction. How can you say, "I know it sounds prejudiced, but my experience has shown me that females are less enthusiastic than males when it comes to my math courses," and not expect her to be upset by that? It *is* prejudiced, and I can't think of any situation where prejudice can be a positive thing, so what can you possibly expect to accomplish by hanging on to it? Even if you feel you *have* come up with some experience-based insight into the probability of the enthusiasm level of males vs. females, what does it actually accomplish for you? Especially given that you say you don't let it influence the approach you take towards them individually. > Is the best solution to simply stay off these controversial topics >entirely? I'd like to think that there's a better solution. Has anyone >else grappled with the murky region between experience and prejudice, and >found a good way to deal with it? No, avoiding an issue doesn't make it go away, anymore than ignoring a toothache will somehow magically heal your tooth. Yes, I can say that I've sometimes held prejudiced opinions about certain "types" of people, and I've tried very hard to overcome them -- they don't accomplish anything, and they don't "prove" anything. What's the actual ratio of males to females in your classes? Have you developed this notion on a percentage basis or strictly by numbers? I.e., last semester you had 21 males and 3 females in your class; only 1 girl showed any real enthusiasm, but 7 of the males did, therefore males are generally more enthusiastic than females. People have to be very careful about letting ideas like that insinuate themselves into our otherwise sensible minds. The mind can be very subtle when it wants to be and allow us to *think* we've arrived at some reasonable conclusion because that's what we really *want* the conclusion to be -- it's called "rationalizing", and it can be dangerous. I try to keep a real sharp lookout for it myself; it can be a tricky little devil. Diane Holt INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. (east coast:) ihnp4!ima!ism780!dianeh (west coast:) decvax!vortex!ism780!dianeh Person: "Oh, I just *knew* that was going to happen -- I just *knew* it." (Their mind): "Yes, I know, that's why I arranged it so it would. I didn't want you to be disappointed."
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (02/12/86)
> BUT there are many > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > competitive young women because bright, competitive > young wome threaten male dominance in general are the sexes at war with each other? i would rather not be... i mean, it'll make everyone as PARANOID as cheryl here... besides-- we just might lose! :-) -- "Break, but never bend." from an oak tree i know ...that can move in two directions at the same time ...akgua!galbp!bing
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/13/86)
In article <110@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >How does one promote social change in most of these areas, then? > [...] >make independent plans) involve cultural assumptions that can't be >legislated away. How about starting with the kids and be very patient? -- Jean-Francois Lamy Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal. CSNet: lamy@toronto.csnet UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy EAN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn ARPA: lamy%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.arpa
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/13/86)
In article <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ...(Daz) writes: >... >My experience after about 10 years in that role is that {male|nonblack} >students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics, >really gung-ho over the subject matter. ... >I have an internal >guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's >chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's {sex|race}. ... >And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I >wanted to: it's based on experience. I've inserted a reference to blacks in addition to your reference to women to make a point: if you had made your comments about nonwhites, most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction to a situation (note I'm not saying anything yet about your handling of the racist reaction). Your "guesser-daemon" is clearly reacting in a sexist fashion based upon your experiences with female students. There are three important questions to be asked here: exactly what is the "guesser-daemon," what is the extent of your control over what the "guesser-daemon" does, and how do you deal with its assessment of events? It's convenient sometimes to compartmentalize our mental activities into "daemons" that take responsibility for certain functions. People who work with computers frequently like to do this (how many times have you heard a compunerd talk about dumping his/her buffers? :-). But in reality I think there's little reason to claim an autonomous process is making the assessment you're talking about. We make sexist and racist assessments because the constraints of a sexist and racist society have taught us to do so. An American in a big city who meets a black person after dark is more likely to be afraid of being mugged than an American who meets a white person after dark. An American who hears the job description "secretary" is more likely to think of a woman than of a man (although as a coworker pointed out, this certainly wasn't true in the 19th century). No matter what our race, creed, or sex, we've ALL been guilty of knee-jerk racist and/or sexist thoughts from time to time. And you don't have to postulate a "guesser- daemon" to understand why. So the "guesser-daemon" doesn't really exist. Given that, can we eliminate these racist and sexist reactions entirely from our life? Saying that it's impossible is claiming that in this particular case a set of reactions can't be unlearned or replaced with another set of reactions. Is this so? Is it not possible for the addictive person to learn a new set of behaviors to replace the old? Of course it is: the fat person who eats because s/he's lonely or has problems can learn to do away with the loneliness or find other ways of dealing with the problems. Why should it be impossible for you to make the "guesser-daemon" go away if you want to, even if it's based on experience? As to dealing with the "guesser-daemon," you say that you don't feel it really affects the way you deal with people. As I've said, we've all had to deal with our own "guesser-daemons" from time to time. The key thing is RECOGNIZING when we're trying to stereotype people and being aware of our tendency to do so. You might try, for example, to go out of your way to make sure you grade papers and assign final grades fairly without regard to sex since you known this "daemon" is working away somewhere out of reach of your current awareness. The only way we'll totally do away with sexism and racism is to change the way people relate to each other socially and economically. This has to be handled in part on the state and national levels through legislation (sorry, all you conservative folks out there, I DON'T believe in the Benevolent Corporation :-). But the place to begin change is at home: if each of us recognizes sexist and racist tendencies in h/erself and nips it in the bud (and disapproves of racist and sexist comments on the part of family and friends) we'll at least have taken a small step toward the just and fair society implied by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. [There, how's that for pie in the sky? :-)] -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
figmo@lll-crg.ARpA (Lynn Gold) (02/13/86)
In article <1951@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > > BUT there are many > > NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY > > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > > competitive young women because bright, competitive > > young wome threaten male dominance in general > > This is a crock. Yes, I'll call you paranoid, but it does not "serve" me >to do so. What this really is is sexism and stereotyping, exactly the >same thing I hear you complaining so bitterly against when practiced by men. >Listen to yourself. You are putting all men into a class based on their gender. >If that isn't sexism, I don't know what is. Greg, the point being made is that there ARE men out there who do that kind of sh*t. She didn't say that ALL men were like that; not all men are. Unfortunately, there are those who aren't like you. I once worked as a consultant for a small, all-male (except for me) consulting firm as a programmer. While we were on one site, the boss and his assistant were insisting it was MY job to make coffee even though I was the only one not drinking it! --Lynn ...lll-crg!figmo
jkr@gitpyr.UUCP (Jean McSpadden) (02/13/86)
I am a guest on this account. Please do not send mail. In article <660@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: > We make sexist >and racist assessments because the constraints of a sexist and racist >society have taught us to do so. An American in a big city who meets a >black person after dark is more likely to be afraid of being mugged >than an American who meets a white person after dark. An American who > Sorry Bill, but your racist assumptions are showing, or are you really suggesting that a black American would be more afraid meeting a black person after dark then he would a white person? > But the place to begin >change is at home: if each of us recognizes sexist and racist >tendencies in h/erself and nips it in the bud (and disapproves of >racist and sexist comments on the part of family and friends) we'll at >least have taken a small step toward the just and fair society implied >by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. > Hear! Hear! Jean McSpadden -- J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR) Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkr "I'd rather be conservative than bigoted, but I'd rather be *dead* than conservative!" -Kate from _Kate_and_Allie_
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/14/86)
In article <617@ism780c.UUCP> dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: >Are you trying to imply that, since you feel >it's an accurate preconceived notion, it is a legitimate prejudice, and >the paradox lies in that conclusion? Phrases like ``legitimite prejudice'' kind of dull the meaning of both words, don't they? The question is one of reality. And he is dead-on-the money -- boys do better than girls at math, men do better than women at math -- on a statistical basis. You can find women who do very well at math, but, statistically speaking, this is rare. this is a big topic of discussion for proghfessional educators -- I've waded through mounds and mounds of discussion on the subject. Is the reason for this due to differences between the male and female brain? is it due to the fact that mathematical ability is encouraged by playing with blocks and legos and girls don't get enough of these as children? Is it that girls mature and get interested in boys earlier than boys do and then stop competing with boys in the classroom because it is perceived to be unfeminine? Because math classes are boring in general, but boys are more programmed to stick it out than girls are through their conditioning? I have read study after study, and I have no idea whether there is any truth in any of them. But to dismiss it as a prejudice is to ignore that it is going on, as if it is the fault of the math teachers (most of whom are overjoyed to get an enthusiastic student, of whatever sex.) >You don't *think* it interferes, but how can you be sure? Do you think >there's a possibility that *your* initial lack of enthusiasm toward your >female students might be projected and, therefore, their level of enthusiasm >towards your class might initially be diminished? I find it very >difficult to believe that if you set yourself up with the notion, >"Here's the new crop of students -- chances are the girls won't really care >too much." that it's not going to have an effect on how you approach them. Holy smokes, by the time you get to university you had better be immune to ``I care more about what the teacher thinks about me than about the subject itself'' disease. Especially in mathematics classes. Remember, what he is looking for is people who are so enthusiastic about their subject that they don't care if the teacher is a walrus. it is this type of student which he finds is almost never female -- and this type of student doesn't care what the teacher's opinion of them is, if they ever notice it. >Well, your friend may have overreacted somewhat, and refusing to discuss the >issue with you certainly won't help matters, but I can understand her >reaction. How can you say, "I know it sounds prejudiced, but my experience >has shown me that females are less enthusiastic than males when it comes to >my math courses," and not expect her to be upset by that? It *is* >prejudiced, and I can't think of any situation where prejudice can be a >positive thing, so what can you possibly expect to accomplish by hanging on >to it? Even if you feel you *have* come up with some experience-based >insight into the probability of the enthusiasm level of males vs. females, >what does it actually accomplish for you? Especially given that you say you >don't let it influence the approach you take towards them individually. It is an accurate representation of reality -- what is. It is better to walk around with concepts which mirror the world that is rather than the world you would like to live in. Is he expected to choose the things he believes in on the basis of what it accomplishes for you -- or on the basis of what is true? -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (02/14/86)
>> We make sexist >>and racist assessments because the constraints of a sexist and racist >>society have taught us to do so. An American in a big city who meets a >>black person after dark is more likely to be afraid of being mugged >>than an American who meets a white person after dark. An American who >> > > Sorry Bill, but your racist assumptions are showing, or are you really > suggesting that a black American would be more afraid meeting a black > person after dark then he would a white person? Sorry, whoever, but your sexist assumptions are showing, or are you really suggesting that an American female would be more afraid of meeting a black female after dark than she would a white male? :-) Nancy Parsons
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/15/86)
> > > *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, > > > competitive young women because bright, competitive > > > young wome threaten male dominance in general > > > Greg, the point being made is that there ARE men out there who do that > kind of sh*t. She didn't say that ALL men were like that. I agree that there are men out there that are like this. All stereotypes persist because there are at least some who fit them. But the statement "threaten male dominance IN GENERAL" (emphasis mine) seems to indicate the way the original author thiks, i.e. very sexist. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/17/86)
In article <1951@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> BUT there are many >> NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY >> *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, >> competitive young women because bright, competitive >> young wome threaten male dominance in general > > This is a crock. No it is not. I've seen male graduate students say of a fellow female graduate student, "she should be having kids by now." She wasn't even married. She had no intention of ever doing so. She was also a hell of a lot brighter than them -- her undergraduate degree was in physics, theirs in meteorology. She was working in atmospheric physics, they, chasing tornadoes. They hurt her because she threatened their macho-scientist masculinity thing because she so clearly outclassed them. They were merciless towards her. You may know her -- Theresa Schulz. >Yes, I'll call you paranoid, but it does not "serve" me >to do so. What this really is is sexism and stereotyping, exactly the >same thing I hear you complaining so bitterly against when practiced by men. If you read the section of the article you posted, you may notice that I said "some PEOPLE..." By that I mean Phyllis Schaffly just as much as I mean Jerry Falwell, and their minor counterparts in positions of influence and power in businesses & academic departments across the country. Have you read Joanne Simpson's article? >Listen to yourself. You are putting all men into a class based on their gender. >If that isn't sexism, I don't know what is. If you want to create a non-sexist >world (a goal I am 100% for, because believe it or not society also has I don't want to "create a non-sexist world" -- I'm not in the business of creating worlds. I only said that some people are willing to KNOWINGLY and PURPOSEFULLY USE conventionaly societal expectations of women to the disadvantage of competitive women. To hurt them. To cast aspersions on their motives and ideals. To erode their advantages of a superior mind by pointing out social disadvantages which may or may not exist -- the disadvantage of having children, for instance. Here we have a woman who neither has nor intends to have children, yet the men around her, the men with whom she successfully competes with, say that she "ought to be having children." It's like some stupid old woman patting me on the knee telling me that I won't have to worry about doing well in school when I get married. These people really annoy me. I don't see why you're accusing me of "sexism" in this context. Maybe you can't read. >expectations about what a MAN should or shouldn't do, some of which I find >as objectionable as you apparently do those about women) you could start >by not practicing it yourself. Oh, I get it. Men are allowed to be sexist in defense of their dominance, but women aren't allowed to be sexist when challenging that dominance. Now I see why the women's movement has been so unsuccessful. By virtue of the feminist stance -- non-sexism -- feminists are denied access to the strongest weapon used against them. Maybe if we redefine "feminism" as a fight against male dominance because male dominance is wrong -- rather than as a fight against sexism -- then we'd have a fighting chance. Of course, I reserve the right to hold to my own views -- that feminism should be a fight against male dominance -- rather than let some MAN tell me that I'm not right because I'm not saying what all the other feminists are saying. > I think you are giving a lot of ignorant jerks a lot more credit than they >deserve. This whole notion that all men deliberately subjogate all women >is ridiculous, and propogating it only serves to give the few who really >*are* trying to dominate an "excuse" to do so. You admit that there *are* some people who *are* trying to subjugate women. Then you and I are in complete agreement. I never said "all men were..." I merely said "some people...." The fact that people who are looking for excuses to dominate women will MISREAD, MISQUOTE, and MISINTERPRET what a woman says or does -- to deliberately accuse her of irrationality or hypocrisy -- when no such irrationality or hypocrisy exists in the first place -- is a perfect example of what I was referring to. So you're just plain wrong. > >--Greg >-- >{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} > !hao!woods > >CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA > >"If the game is lost, we're all the same; >No one left to place or take the blame"
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/17/86)
In article <654@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >In article <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > >> ... BUT there are many >> NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY >> *USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright, >> competitive young women because bright, competitive >> young wome threaten male dominance in general, and >> bright competitive young women threaten *them* and >> *their* *male* *buddies* in particular. I know >> what the response will be already -- the men will >> (self-servingly) call me 'paranoid' ... > >Please note that in the above passage you say "...THE MEN will ... >If you intended to imply something else by this posting, >please let us know. Ok, ok already. Some self-serving male jerkoffs will deny that they knowingly and purposefully use conventional stereotypes against bright competitive women in order to help themselves. They will dismiss any accusation to that effect as "paranoia". >
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (02/17/86)
In article <1400@gitpyr.UUCP> jkr@gitpyr.UUCP (Jean McSpadden) writes: >>... An American in a big city who meets a >>black person after dark is more likely to be afraid of being mugged >>than an American who meets a white person after dark. ... > >Sorry Bill, but your racist assumptions are showing, or are you really >suggesting that a black American would be more afraid meeting a black >person after dark then he would a white person? My unqualified statement is in fact an overstatement. But I think it may be true in certain circumstances. The statistics I've seen say that most crimes against blacks are committed by other blacks. There ARE neighborhoods that have a high crime rate that are mostly black, and some of these neighborhoods are 'policed' by gangs making sure outsiders keep away. Imagine you're a black resident in such a neighborhood on a Friday night, and you're walking down an alley when you spot a male walking toward you. My contention is that your reaction to the person will be affected by his race. If it's a white person, you're likely to ask yourself what the HELL a white person is doing in this neighborhood after 10 PM; doesn't he know the Iron Dukes are going to turn him into mincemeat if they find him on their turf? Doesn't he know every junkie on the block will spot him as an easy mark? And if it's a black person, you're going to attempt to size him up REAL fast to determine whether you've gotten yourself into a potentially dangerous situation. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (02/18/86)
[If this line is missing, please inform your system administrator.] In article <660@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >In article <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ...(Daz) writes: > >>... >>My experience after about 10 years in that role is that {male|nonblack} >>students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics, >>really gung-ho over the subject matter. ... >>I have an internal >>guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's >>chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's {sex|race}. ... >>And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I >>wanted to: it's based on experience. > >I've inserted a reference to blacks in addition to your reference to >women to make a point: if you had made your comments about nonwhites, >most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction to a >situation (note I'm not saying anything yet about your handling of the >racist reaction). Hmmm, well I'm not sure I'd agree it's racist. Nor am I sure that his reaction to his students is sexist. I think it's the matter of degree that troubles me. I know folks from outside of Detroit who've *never* seriously spoken to a black who think that Harold Washington has no business whatsoever being mayor of Chicago because he's black. (Do they care that the city of Chicago is 70% black? Nope.) *That's* what I call racist. My uncle has *never* listened with respect to a woman in his life, and he thinks as long woman insist on wearing pants and non-frilly blouses that he's perfectly justified in referring to chairMEN. Women in pants are clearly forfeiting their womanhood, after all. *That's* what I call sexist. The fellow you quote clearly doesn't fall into this category. He seems to have shown respect for his female students, and states that he is in fact quite pleased when he finds an enthusiastically mathematical female. His "problem" is that his past experience is influencing his expectations in current situations. Recognizing trends in one's experience is recognizing trends in one's experience. It does become prejudice, however, when that which is in the past influences one's expectations in new situations, i.e. when one "pre-judges" someone else. Is that an ideal reaction? Nope. Is it a reasonable one? Well, I don't know. It's certainly been my past experience that it happens, and based on that I expect it to continue. [B-)] So it's prejudicial. But is it sexist? You state: >An American who >hears the job description "secretary" is more likely to think of a >woman than of a man (although as a coworker pointed out, this >certainly wasn't true in the 19th century). No matter what our race, >creed, or sex, we've ALL been guilty of knee-jerk racist and/or sexist >thoughts from time to time. It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a secretary is female to be sexist. But is it really sexist, or is it "merely" prejudicial? I think of "sexist" as that which denigrates or oppresses a person (esp. a woman) based on gender. Is assuming that a secretary is female (while being equally responsive and open to male secretaries) denigrating or oppressive? After all, a secretary is a responsible and quite necessary position. Is the expectation that a female will probably be less enthusiastic about math (while not doing *anything* to ensure that it's true) denigrating or oppressive? They're both clearly prejudicial (in that an assessment is being made before all the current facts are available), but are they sexist? And (as you're all wondering by now) is it an important distinction? Beats me. [Sometimes I think I just post 'cause my fingers like to type. B-)] But anyway, I recall the Danieal (original poster) asking for input to this "past experience" thing so here's mine: I don't think your "guesser-daemon" is particularly unique to you (I *do* think it's refreshingly unique that you're concerned about it), nor do I think it's sexist. But I do think it's prejudicial. What to do about it? Recognize that you're "pre-judging" the females (and perhaps the males) in your classes, that you're making judgements about them before you know them personally. And then make a conscious effort to be open to what's really there, instead of what you expect to be there. If you're already doing that (it sounds like you might be), well then I think that's best you can do. I wish I could think of a specific way to make the feelings disappear altogether (gosh, do I wish I find that answer!), but I can't, so I think dealing with them head on is the best we've got. Now back to the article at hand: >Given that, can we >eliminate these racist and sexist reactions entirely from our life? >Saying that it's impossible is claiming that in this particular case a >set of reactions can't be unlearned or replaced with another set of >reactions. Is this so? Is it not possible for the addictive person to >learn a new set of behaviors to replace the old? Of course it is: the >fat person who eats because s/he's lonely or has problems can learn to >do away with the loneliness or find other ways of dealing with the >problems. Why should it be impossible for you to make the "guesser-daemon" >go away if you want to, even if it's based on experience? Well, it's possible for an addictive personality to learn a new set of behaviors, and they can change their attitudes towards their *addic- tion*, but I'm not sure it's possible for them to cure their addiction. After all, alcoholics and other substance abusers can never have another drink/hit again or they go back off the deep end. Of course, people with eating disorders clearly don't stop eating forever. I don't know about turning off "guesser-daemons" tho. I mean, expecting that which has happened repeatedly before to happen again is pretty thoroughly ingrained in us. Learning language and cultural idiosyncracies couldn't happen without the trait. All of science is based on it. I'd be real surprised if anybody could truly turn it off in just a few of these particular situations. >As to dealing with the "guesser-daemon," you say that you don't feel >it really affects the way you deal with people. As I've said, we've >all had to deal with our own "guesser-daemons" from time to time. The >key thing is RECOGNIZING when we're trying to stereotype people and >being aware of our tendency to do so. You might try, for example, to >go out of your way to make sure you grade papers and assign final >grades fairly without regard to sex since you known this "daemon" is >working away somewhere out of reach of your current awareness. This I agree with. (In fact, I seem to have simply reworded it above. But it took me so long to write it that I'm not gonna delete it now. My apologies for being redundant.) -- --JB ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) Sylvia says `A real lady never asks: "Was *what* good for me?". ("I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention.")'
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/20/86)
>>>... >>>My experience after about 10 years in that role is that {male|nonblack} >>>students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics, >>>really gung-ho over the subject matter. ... >>>I have an internal >>>guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's >>>chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's {sex|race}. ... >>>And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I >>>wanted to: it's based on experience. >> >>I've inserted a reference to blacks in addition to your reference to >>women to make a point: if you had made your comments about nonwhites, >>most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction to a >>situation (note I'm not saying anything yet about your handling of the >>racist reaction). Thought experiment for the day: There are two people standing before you, one is female, the other is male. They are both about the same age. The only thing you know about these people is that they were randomly chosen from the University population at large, and that one is gung-ho about mathematics, and one is not. I offer to give you $1,000,000 if you can correctly guess which one is the gung-ho mathematician. Which do you choose? If you choose the male, are you being sexist? -- --MKR "I've heard you say many times that you're better than no one, And no one is better than you. If you really believe that you know you have nothing to win And nothing to lose." - B. Dylan
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/20/86)
In article <1400@gitpyr.UUCP> jkr@gitpyr.UUCP (Jean McSpadden) writes: >In article <660@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >> We make sexist >>and racist assessments because the constraints of a sexist and racist >>society have taught us to do so. An American in a big city who meets a >>black person after dark is more likely to be afraid of being mugged >>than an American who meets a white person after dark. An American who > >Sorry Bill, but your racist assumptions are showing, or are you really >suggesting that a black American would be more afraid meeting a black >person after dark then he would a white person? Since when is pointing out an observed fact (that blacks are more likely to be crime victims from other blacks than from whites) racist? Don't bother answering, it has the same answer as "since when is pointing out an observed fact sexist?". (Answer: when you don't like the fact.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (02/20/86)
In article <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > > Oh, I get it. Men are allowed to be sexist in defense of > their dominance, but women aren't allowed to be sexist when > challenging that dominance. Now I see why the women's movement > has been so unsuccessful. By virtue of the feminist stance -- > non-sexism -- feminists are denied access to the strongest weapon > used against them. Maybe if we redefine "feminism" as a fight > against male dominance because male dominance is wrong -- rather > than as a fight against sexism -- then we'd have a fighting chance. You've hit the nail right on the head. If you actually manage to provoke open warfare between the sexes (unlikely, but if...) women will lose. A sexist statement? Possibly, but I am thinking more along the lines of 'God is on the side with the most ammunition'. If you back a rat into a corner it will fight against great odds. But what if the rat attempts to back a cat into a corner? Will the fact that the cat is larger and stronger than the rat really prevent it from taking action in its own defense? If there is a 'power balance' between the sexes it currently lies rather heavily in favor of men. The greatest thing that the 'feminist stance' (I quote that because I don't want to get involved in trying to define/defend/attack the term) is that it is RIGHT. Sexism is a non-rational attack against PEOPLE based upon certain physical characteristics. Racism is the same. So is bigotry against any ethnic group you care to name. As long as the 'war' is fought on these grounds you will receive a lot of moral support (and other kinds) from people who are not otherwise involved. This is akin to Gandi's liberation of India. And its ultimate success will rest on the same principles that his did -- people are basically GOOD. There will always be jerks and assholes out there, but these are made all the more noticable because of the way they stand out from the milieu. If this were not true, then Gandi's plan would not have worked. If the British response had simply been to kill 10 people for every infraction, non-violence would have gotten him nowhere. The Indians would probably have won the ensuing war, but at what cost? Pyrrhic victories belong in textbooks, not in real life. So what is the answer? I think education is the only effective means. Make people aware of the sexism that exists, and why and how it deny's women the right to be PEOPLE and to be treated as such. > Of course, I reserve the right to hold to my own views -- that > feminism should be a fight against male dominance -- rather > than let some MAN tell me that I'm not right because I'm not > saying what all the other feminists are saying. I am glad to hear you are willing to hold your own views. I would never attack you for 'not saying what all the other feminists are saying' -- whatEVER that might be. I am just saddened to hear that you are willing to throw your strongest weapon out the door just to feed your ego. Name calling and vicious diatribes are not only childish -- they are BORING. <please try to make the flames interesting> -- geoff sherwood ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!geoff ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!geoff "If your words can't stand on their own, adding volume won't help"
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (02/20/86)
Ok, folks. Enough's enough. Cheryl, your postings may give *some* women a battle cry to rally abound, but it gives this man a great deal of sorrow. Do you read your postings before you exit the editor? Do you read them with a critical, objective eye? Do you see the contradictions in them? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Now, I can't suggest that fellow male netters treat Cheryl the same way I might suggest they treat a male poster who is as self-contradictory, as Cheryl would just use that as further evidence that *all* men are vicious woman-haters, but I, for one, intend to continue to read what she has to say, file it away as what *one* woman can interpret the state of the world as, and hope that someone helps her see how things really are. -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one. "If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/21/86)
In article <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes: >>...if you had made your comments about nonwhites, >>most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction ... > >Hmmm, well I'm not sure I'd agree it's racist. Nor am I sure that his >reaction to his students is sexist. First of all, a disclaimer: I didn't intend to pick on the original poster as a sexist, racist, or anything else. I think we're ALL members of a society where sexism and racism are so commonplace that it's difficult for any of us to claim complete purity of thought. Let him who is without guilt ... I'm not sure either about the racism of the attitude I described, but let's think about it some more since the 'sexist' or 'racist' accusation seems to be made in this group from time to time. Observing a situation in your environment in which two groups perform differently on the average and making statements about the statistical likelihood of a group's member acting in a certain way may not be a sexist/racist act in and of itself. But we have to talk about this act of observation in context: that is, what assumptions and attitudes bring a person to automatically make the observation on meeting a person of a certain group? And we can also talk about the results of making the observation: does it or doesn't it affect the person's future interactions with the members of the group and h/er attitudes and assumptions about members of the group? What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on h/er membership in a group. The distinction between making a blanket assumption about ALL members in a group and a qualified assumption about a person's statistical likelihood of possessing certain capabilities is not at all clear to me. Sexism/racism involve an assessment of observed behavior (I'm here developing my own thoughts on what sexism/racism involve, not quoting some authority; feel free to argue against this, but don't ask for sources 'cause there ain't none :-), an implied reason for the behavior being different for the two (or more) groups, and an action taken based on the observation of behavior. The original poster's "daemon" certainly was making an assessment of observed behavior. For him to measure the sexism (if any) present in his assessment, he has to ask himself a couple of questions: 1. Is the assessment important to his functioning as a teacher in some way? If so, how, and if not, why did he feel it was important to make this assessment? 2. Did he feel his observation was colored in any way by assumptions that may be inherently sexist? The thing is, the poster didn't give a reason for the behavior being different ("well, we all KNOW what women are like..."), or suggest that any action be taken based on the behavior he observed. So I don't think his observation was sexist at all. It's the kind of observation that could be USED by sexists to reinforce their model for female behavior, however; and that's where the real danger lies, I think. >I think it's the matter of degree >that troubles me. I know folks from outside of Detroit who've *never* >seriously spoken to a black who think that Harold Washington has no >business whatsoever being mayor of Chicago because he's black. (Do >they care that the city of Chicago is 70% black? Nope.) *That's* what >I call racist. ... Well, it's certainly obvious racism. But I think racism can take much subtler and insidious forms; consider the Jensen and Shockley 'hypotheses' about the inferior performance of blacks on I.Q. tests. >... Recognizing trends in one's >experience is recognizing trends in one's experience. It does become >prejudice, however, when that which is in the past influences one's >expectations in new situations, i.e. when one "pre-judges" someone >else. Is that an ideal reaction? Nope. Is it a reasonable one? >Well, I don't know. It's certainly been my past experience that it >happens, and based on that I expect it to continue. [B-)] The only person I hope to change in my life is MYSELF. If I can recognize my own prejudice and change my own attitudes, I'll be a better person for it. But if I hear other people spouting what I perceive to be sexism or racism, you'd better believe I'll let them know I don't want that kind of crap spouted in my presence (no, I'm not referring at all to the original poster). >It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a >secretary is female to be sexist. But is it really sexist, or is it >"merely" prejudicial? I think of "sexist" as that which denigrates or >oppresses a person (esp. a woman) based on gender. ... The problem is, I think, that the assumption does lead to oppression in that a potential employer will tend to pigeonhole inexperienced people for certain positions based on prejudice. And once you're pegged as a secretary it may be difficult to move up to a real challenging position like 'Girl Friday' (hey, that's a joke, folks!). >And (as you're all wondering by now) is it an important distinction? >Beats me. Well, I do think it's important, because I think it's the uncritical acceptance of these assumptions by people in power that LEADS to things like oppression. >...I don't know about >turning off "guesser-daemons" tho. I mean, expecting that which has >happened repeatedly before to happen again is pretty thoroughly ingrained >in us. Learning language and cultural idiosyncracies couldn't happen >without the trait. All of science is based on it. I'd be real surprised >if anybody could truly turn it off in just a few of these particular >situations. Ah, but as I've pointed out, one's attitudes toward one's own "daemons" can be changed. And that's the path to reducing one's own sexist/racist tendencies, I think. At least for me. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/21/86)
In article <529@mmm.UUCP>, mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > > Thought experiment for the day: There are two people standing > before you, one is female, the other is male. They are both about the same > age. The only thing you know about these people is that they were randomly > chosen from the University population at large, and that one is gung-ho > about mathematics, and one is not. I offer to give you $1,000,000 if you > can correctly guess which one is the gung-ho mathematician. > > Which do you choose? If you choose the male, are you being sexist? > > --MKR You choose the male, of course: "The contest goes not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift -- but that's the way to bet." If you don't know anything about the individual, you're reduce to either making guesses on the basis of percentages, the basis of prejudice, or refusing to guess. In the example above, if you don't bet, you can't win. If you guess on the basis of percentages ("scientific prejudice," if you will), you have the highest chance of being right. If you guess on the basis of prejudice (for example, "I'm a feminist, so I'll choose the woman"), the odds are (in general) less favorable. In any event, though, "sexism" is too harsh a term to use in this example. Sexism is when you stick to your prejudices IN SPITE OF evidence, not when you make stereotypical guesses when you can't get any hard information. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon "The contest goes not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift -- but that's the way to bet." Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail! They made me do it! It was an accident!
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/23/86)
Remember when you couldn't tell dirty jokes to women because they were too delicate to hear such things and bound to be hurt and offended? Now you can't tell jokes like: >That's just because it's all a subversive plot and we're all against you. >We've all come to realize that Cheryl is the only one who *really* knows >what's going on in our (men's) sick, twisted little minds. The only thing >we can do now is eliminate Cheryl and hope she hasn't spread the truth too >far. We're gonna get you Cheryl. You can't hide...our people are every- >where... because women are too delicate to hear such things and are bound to be hurt and offended. The oddest thing about this is that it is the people who call themselves *feminists* who are loudest in demanding this. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/24/86)
In article <341@fear.UUCP> robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >In article <529@mmm.UUCP>, mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >> >> Thought experiment for the day: There are two people standing >> before you, one is female, the other is male. They are both about the same >> age. The only thing you know about these people is that they were randomly >> chosen from the University population at large, and that one is gung-ho >> about mathematics, and one is not. I offer to give you $1,000,000 if you >> can correctly guess which one is the gung-ho mathematician. >> >> Which do you choose? If you choose the male, are you being sexist? >> >> --MKR > >You choose the male, of course: "The contest goes not always to the >strong, nor the race to the swift -- but that's the way to bet." > >If you don't know anything about the individual, you're reduce to >either making guesses on the basis of percentages, the basis of >prejudice, or refusing to guess. In the example above, if you don't >bet, you can't win. If you guess on the basis of percentages >("scientific prejudice," if you will), you have the highest chance of >being right. If you guess on the basis of prejudice (for example, >"I'm a feminist, so I'll choose the woman"), the odds are (in >general) less favorable. > >In any event, though, "sexism" is too harsh a term to use in this >example. Sexism is when you stick to your prejudices IN SPITE OF >evidence, not when you make stereotypical guesses when you can't get >any hard information. > > Robert Plamondon Good answer. Ithink that was the point of the person who originally posted the article about his "guesser daemon". He had no knowledge of the people who came into his class, and he had to make decisions based upon the odds. Unfortunately, what this does is perpetuate the status quo - in this case the male dominance of the field of mathematics. This is the point of affirmative action programs - to be sexist or racist in the opposite direction in the hopes of evening out the unfairnesses. I support the concept of affirmative action, but the point I wanted to make was that when it comes right down to it, sometimes a betting person has to play the odds and deal with the world as it is, rather than as it should be. And when it happens, it isn't necessarily sexist. -- --MKR There is none so blind as he who cannot see.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/24/86)
In article <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > No it is not. I've seen male graduate students say > of a fellow female graduate student, "she should be > having kids by now." Jeez, Cheryl, I've been in graduate school in two disciplines (environmental sciences and computer science) and I've NEVER heard a male grad student say anything like that of a female student. And a grad student who did make a comment like that would have been shouted down by his fellow students, male and female alike. Maybe these people were deliberately pulling your chain ... or maybe the graduate students I've been around are a little more mature than the group you seem to know. > She wasn't even married. She > had no intention of ever doing so. She was also a > hell of a lot brighter than them -- her undergraduate > degree was in physics, theirs in meteorology. She > was working in atmospheric physics, they, chasing > tornadoes. Ahem. Well. This is nothing less than academic snobbery, Cheryl. Perhaps you mean she had an undergraduate degree that demanded more rigorous mathematics than her male peers'. I've certainly known physics majors that were uncreative dim bulbs in my time (read: mathematical rigor ain't the only thing that contributes to 'brightness'). > They hurt her because she threatened their > macho-scientist masculinity thing because she so > clearly outclassed them. They were merciless towards > her. You may know her -- Theresa Schulz. Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Is this an 'in' thing, perhaps from net.women? You should remember this is going out to net.singles as well before you start referencing people we haven't heard of. > ...Have you read Joanne Simpson's article? Again, I assume you're referring to something mentioned in net.women, a newsgroup I don't subscribe to. If people are going to cross-post to other newsgroups in the middle of an exchange they should keep this in mind. As to Joanne Simpson, I took a graduate seminar in weather modification from her while I was a grad student at the University of Virginia. She told a story about her advisor when she was working on a PhD who asked her what she was insterested in. She said "cloud physics," and he told her that was a good field for a girl to go into because it wasn't very important and she wouldn't have much competition from men. This fellow was a famous meteorologist, Rossby I think. Joanne was known for going to bat for her graduate students, male as well as female. She went out of her way to make sure her people were progressing in their careers, and helped many female graduate students survive in a male-dominated field. Politically, however, she and her husband Robert are less than fully enlightened. They've received massive grants over the years from the Phillipine and South African governments for weather modification studies, and I once heard Robert Simpson make the following comment in a seminar: "...Some say Ferdinand Marcos is a dictator. Well, I say if he's a dictator the world needs more dictators like him..." Although Joanne is compassionate and caring where feminist issues are concerned, she seems sometimes to adjust her politics for maximum personal benefit. > Oh, I get it. Men are allowed to be sexist in defense of > their dominance, but women aren't allowed to be sexist when > challenging that dominance. Nope. NOBODY'S allowed to be sexist, because ANY sexism is wrong. To believe otherwise is to be a hypocrite, Cheryl. It's as though Desmond Tutu were preaching that blacks should exploit whites in South Africa for 200 years (or whatever) to 'make up' somehow for white domination. Suppression is WRONG no matter who's doing it. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (02/24/86)
[If I don't look, it isn't there.] In article <138@sfsup.UUCP> mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) writes: >[...] I, for one, intend to continue to read what she [Cheryl] has to >say, file it away as what *one* woman can interpret the state of the world >as, and hope that someone helps her see how things really are. The previous paragraph (in it's entirety) states: >There are none so blind as those who will not see. I'd say that's about right. She may be obnoxious, Marty, but she may also be right. Then again, she may not. But knowing beforehand that you're going to file *everything* she says away as "one woman's misguided opinion" sounds like a refusal to see (or at least listen) if I ever heard one. -- --JB ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) Sylvia says `A real lady never asks: "Was *what* good for me?". ("I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention.")'
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/25/86)
In article <680@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the >assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on >h/er membership in a group. We were discusisng this in net.politics.theory a while ago. I still think that sexism and racism involve the assumption that a person is *inferior* based on he/r membership in a group. Not everybody who reads politics theory agrees with me. Men have penises thus is not sexist. Blacks have black hair is not racist. (They have the same flaws as all generalisations -- castrated men are still men, and Blacks who bleach ther hair are still Blacks.) I don't think ``most mathematicians are men'' is sexist either -- it is reality. ``Most mathematicians are men because almost no women can think logically'' *is* sexist. I get very worried about political movements which can't tell the difference between a statement of fact and a slur. Are their perceptions so warped by their ideology that they cannot perceive what is? -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (02/25/86)
>In article <138@sfsup.UUCP> mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) writes: >>[...] I, for one, intend to continue to read what she [Cheryl] has to >>say, file it away as what *one* woman can interpret the state of the world >>as, and hope that someone helps her see how things really are. >The previous paragraph (in it's entirety) states: >>There are none so blind as those who will not see. >I'd say that's about right. She may be obnoxious, Marty, but she >may also be right. Then again, she may not. But knowing beforehand >that you're going to file *everything* she says away as "one woman's >misguided opinion" sounds like a refusal to see (or at least listen) >if I ever heard one. >-- >--JB ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) > Sylvia says `A real lady never asks: "Was *what* good for me?". > ("I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention.")' Whoa! I will admit that my phrasing was less than what I'd intended (blush), but don't call me blind (fumble-fingered, perhaps). Permit me to elaborate (something I was unable to do at the time). First, Cheryl presents the most one-sided views of her chosen topics I've ever encountered. Since these are the only insights we (the net) are shown of Cheryl (can anyone believe she's *never* had a caring relationship with a man (at least before her apparent current state of mind set in)?), I cannot believe she is *right*. Further, she *is* obnoxious, and that too detracts credence from what she says. The intent of my statement was that I will read her postings and award them the credibility they deserve on the basis of content. Thus far, they have not merited an overwhelming amount of credibility (as is true of anyone's flames). And, a parting shot (to Beth). I generally find humor in people's cute quotes, but after seeing it many times in the last week or so, yours has reached in and struck a raw nerve. To wit, I offer the following: Marty says, `A real man never has to ask a real lady, "Was it good for you?"' -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one. "If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (02/25/86)
In article <529@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > Thought experiment for the day: There are two people standing >before you, one is female, the other is male. They are both about the same >age. The only thing you know about these people is that they were randomly >chosen from the University population at large, and that one is gung-ho >about mathematics, and one is not. I offer to give you $1,000,000 if you >can correctly guess which one is the gung-ho mathematician. > > Which do you choose? If you choose the male, are you being sexist? Well, no, I don't think it would be sexist, but it might not be very bright. When I was majoring in math at the University of Colorado, about two thirds of us students, undergraduates and graduates, were women. The professors were mostly men, though. The sciences that seemed to me to be overwhelmingly filled with men were physics, chemistry, engineering of various sorts (my sister was the only woman majoring in Mechanical Engineering in her class), and geology. Women seemed very numerous in biology, the "social sciences", and math. So maybe the stereotype is mistaken? (They are occasionally, I've noticed.) Or was CU really abnormal in this respect? -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (02/26/86)
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) says: > You've hit the nail right on the head. If you actually manage to >provoke open warfare between the sexes (unlikely, but if...) women will >lose. > As long as the 'war' is fought on these >grounds you will receive a lot of moral support (and other kinds) from >people who are not otherwise involved. This is akin to Gandi's liberation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >of India. And its ultimate success will rest on the same principles that his ^^^^^^^^ >did -- people are basically GOOD. There will always be jerks and assholes >out there, but these are made all the more noticable because of the way >they stand out from the milieu. If this were not true, then Gandi's plan >would not have worked. If the British response had simply been to kill 10 >people for every infraction, non-violence would have gotten him nowhere. >The Indians would probably have won the ensuing war, but at what cost? Pyrrhic >victories belong in textbooks, not in real life. > ><please try to make the flames interesting> Not exactly a flame, and I'll try to be interesting. Your reference to Ghandi in this context is rather strange since, if you will remember (or care to read any history books on the subject), Ghandi's 'liberation of India' let to one of the bloodiest civil wars in history. The Muslims and Hindus each tried to exterminate the other in order to be the 'ruling party' when the British left. The British knew this would happen. They tried to tell the world that it would happen, but nobody was interested in listening. Ghandi had the world brainwashed. This doesn't mean that I believe in 'the war of the sexes', just that I don't believe in 'peaceful' civil disobedience. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (02/27/86)
> Remember when you couldn't tell dirty jokes to women because they were > too delicate to hear such things and bound to be hurt and offended? > > Now you can't tell jokes like: > > insert unfunny "joke" > > because women are too delicate to hear such things and are bound to be hurt > and offended... > -- > Laura Creighton Oh, honestly, Laura! No one said anything about anyone being too delicate or being hurt. Someone pointed out the simple fact that brutality is no joke for (most) women, it's an unpleasant reality. You sound like a woman saying "Hey, look at me, I'm one of the guys." At least you must be a woman who has never been brutalized. If that is so, I am glad for you, but do try to be sensitive to others who HAVE suffered. Thanks, Nancy Parsons
bright@dataioDataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (02/27/86)
In article <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes: >It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a >secretary is female to be sexist. But is it really sexist, or is it >"merely" prejudicial? Since (in my experience) all the secretaries I have met happened to be women, I think it is hardly sexist to think that the next secretary I come across will PROBABLY be a woman. If, in fact, the percentage of women secretaries vs men secretaries in past experience is roughly 100%, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the next secretary will be a woman. Sexism appears when one says "secretarial work is women's work".
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/27/86)
In article <919@dataioDataio.UUCP> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright writes: >In article <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes: >>It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a >>secretary is female to be sexist. But is it really sexist, or is it >>"merely" prejudicial? > >Since (in my experience) all the secretaries I have met happened to be >women, I think it is hardly sexist to think that the next secretary While Linda is on vacation (a well deserved one), the temp typing for me is an undergraduate man. He's very good with a word processor. Cheryl
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/27/86)
> This is the point of affirmative action programs - to be sexist or > racist in the opposite direction in the hopes of evening out the > unfairnesses. I support the concept of affirmative action ...and I do not, in general. I have no objection to watchdog-type programs or laws that make sure minorities and women are given the SAME chance, but I do not support "reverse" racism and sexism either. NO preference should be given to ANYONE, even a minority or a female, based on sex or race, and that's all most affirmative action quota-based programs are. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (02/28/86)
Cheryl Stewart: You admit that there *are* some people who *are* trying to subjugate women. Then you and I are in complete agreement. I never said "all men were..." I merely said "some people...." The fact that people who are looking for excuses to dominate women will MISREAD, MISQUOTE, and MISINTERPRET what a woman says or does -- to deliberately accuse her of irrationality or hypocrisy -- when no such irrationality or hypocrisy exists in the first place -- is a perfect example of what I was referring to. So you're just plain wrong. Marty Shannon: Now, I can't suggest that fellow male netters treat Cheryl the same way I might suggest they treat a male poster who is as self-contradictory, as Cheryl would just use that as further evidence that *all* men are vicious woman-haters, but I, for one, intend to continue to read what she has to say, file it away as what *one* woman can interpret the state of the world as, and hope that someone helps her see how things really are. Does anyone else get the impression that Marty Shannon is proving Cheryl Stewart's point here? I'm still puzzled why people (all right, SOME people -- whatever happened to (SOME) people's ability to read and understand rhetoric?) seem to have so much trouble accepting what I think is Cheryl Stewart's most important argument... Maybe if I utter it rather than Cheryl, people will take it seriously -- after all, I'm a man and Cheryl isn't. (And whatever happened to (SOME) people's capacity to interpret irony? Grumble.) A woman who quits school when men who are more persistent get their degrees; a woman who accepts a lower-paying job than a man would, as a nurse or an elementary school teacher or a housewife; a woman who settles for 'being happy' instead of 'being successful'; a woman who puts her livelihood in the hands of men -- such a woman is going to be swinging from men's chains for the rest of her life. If the men are nice to her, she'll be happy pickin' cotton and singin' gospel music; if the men are hard on her, THERE WON'T BE A DAMNED THING SHE CAN DO ABOUT IT. This society teaches its men to be independent. Mothers tell their sons, 'Johnny, if you don't do well in school you won't be able to get a job when you grow up.' Fathers say, 'Get a job, son. A REAL job.' Daughters are indulged. They are directed to take dance classes instead of advanced algebra, art appreciation instead of physics, home ec instead of shop. Don't get me wrong -- this world has a place for excellent dancers and great artists. But how many of these girls who took dance are going to become professional dancers? How many will become mathematicians, engineers, auto mechanics? How many will be able to dictate the course of their future careers? Every last one of those girls who settled for something less than the boys did is contributing to the stereotype which (SOME) men use to oppress truly competitive women. That stereotype says, women aren't serious about their futures, we can't count on women to be as determined on the job as men, they never persevere. I get most upset when I see women use that stereotype against themselves. As an undergraduate in linguistics I commonly attended classes in which I was the only male student. It wasn't until I was a senior that I realized what a hoax this was -- I was the only student in my graduating class! All of my female classmates had dropped out or had taken a degree in teaching English as a foreign language so that they could become school teachers. As far as I know only one woman in the class behind me went on to graduate study (Hi, Susanna, hope you were more successful than I was!). All of these women had accepted society's guff that they shouldn't have to try too hard, shouldn't aspire to more than the second income in a middle-class home with time out to raise the kids. And what happens when they find themselves with three kids, no earning potential, and a husband who likes to drink a lot and punch them out? What happens when they're divorced or widowed and forced to live on welfare? It's a lie that women don't need to be independent. Does this sound any better when a man says it? Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/28/86)
In article <1107@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: >> Remember when you couldn't tell dirty jokes to women because they were >> too delicate to hear such things and bound to be hurt and offended? >> >> Now you can't tell jokes like: >> >> insert unfunny "joke" >> >> because women are too delicate to hear such things and are bound to be hurt >> and offended... >> -- >> Laura Creighton > >Oh, honestly, Laura! No one said anything about anyone being too delicate >or being hurt. Someone pointed out the simple fact that brutality is no >joke for (most) women, it's an unpleasant reality. No. They gave Gregg a thorough chewing out for it. By the way, brutality is *not* an unplesant reality for ``(most)'' women in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and selected other countries around the world -- unless you have a very different definition of brutality than I do. (In which case I hope you find another word. When I say ``brutal'' I don't want people to think ``possibly uncomfortable''. [In other parts of the world it is debatable -- because it is debatable as to whether life is brutal for *all* people in the rest of the world.] >You sound like a woman saying "Hey, look at me, I'm one of the guys." At >least you must be a woman who has never been brutalized. If that is so, I >am glad for you, but do try to be sensitive to others who HAVE suffered. > >Thanks, >Nancy Parsons You are wrong about the brutalized, but that is beside the point. Do you know the difference between compassion and pity? To feel compassion for those individuals who are still hurting from their experiences -- that is a good thing. But to indulge them when they go around hurting other people steps across the thin line between compassion and pity. Clearly some people were offended by Gregg's joke. These people have a problem. As individuals I can feel compassion for them. But the best thing that I could see happen is for them to get over whatever it is that has crippled them so badly that they are that badly effected by a joke. It may not be easy for them -- indeed, it may be the hardest thing that they have ever done -- but it is still the best thing that could happen. Now, if people flat out said ``I was offended'' by something without dumping all over Gregg -- well, then they would have nothgin but my sympathy. But we are back to ``you are responsible for your own feelings'' again. To the extent that people take responsibility for their own feelings, I can feel sympathy for them. But, to the extent that they are trying to blame Gregg for their own feelings, I have to get off the boat. I mean, either they are creatures who are so controlled by their past expereinces, (however rotten) that there is no hope for them -- and I cannot help but pity them ... or they are capable of learning and growing through their experiences (however rotten) and getting beyond them. But let us consider what happened. Gregg (a real live human being, here, don't insert your favourite nasty male stereotype) posted a few lines which were so heavy-handed that I cannot believe that anybody could consider him serious. Now, as far as I know, Gregg has never murdered, raped, or beaten any women. Yet people jump on his case. Astonishing. A simple ``that was tactless'' is about all that is required if you wanted to state that point -- but no ... why waste an opportunity to get high and mighty with him... Have you ever considered that that might hurt him? If it is the hurt you care about, tell him he blew it quietly, and with compassion ... but no, I get the impression that Gregg as a human being just doesn't matter at all. Most men are not boor and assholes. Really they aren't. They are imperfect; they make mistakes; they don't live up to all of your expectations; but they are ``just plain folks'' like the rest of us. Real, live , human being working their hardest to get on in this world, and living and learning like the rest of us -- no different. They laugh and they hurt and they feel proud and embarrassed just like everybody else. The world is a interesting and often tough place. If you aren't tough enough to handle Gregg's posting then -- to use an idiom common where I grew up ``what good are you?'' Seriously. If Gregg's posting bent you that much out of shape, then you probably couldn't have lived through my last week. But I suspect that most women could. I know too many good, capable women to think that most women would be slighted by Gregg's positing. But I keep coming up with the same idea -- it is a slight on all those brave, capable women who got on with it when feminsits imply that women in general would be offended by Gregg's posting. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (02/28/86)
In article <551@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >>What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the >>assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on >>h/er membership in a group. > >We were discusisng this in net.politics.theory a while ago. I still think >that sexism and racism involve the assumption that a person is *inferior* >based on he/r membership in a group. ... I think it's probably a matter of viewpoint. If a group thinks all other groups' capabilities represent the normal range but that IT happens to be wildly *superior* to all other groups, does that qualify as racism/sexism/etc.? But then again, I guess this is claiming that EVERYONE ELSE is inferior, so perhaps my definition of racism/sexism is too weak to be really useful... -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
hedden@atux01.UUCP (D. Hedden) (03/01/86)
In article <1977@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > > ... I support the concept of affirmative action > > ...and I do not, in general. I have no objection to watchdog-type > programs or laws that make sure minorities and women are given the SAME > chance, but I do not support "reverse" racism and sexism either. NO > preference should be given to ANYONE, even a minority or a female, based on > sex or race, and that's all most affirmative action quota-based programs are. > > --Greg I think I understand what Greg I saying, as I have been known to express the same sentiments before. However, after dealing with AA and EO matters for a few years, I have come to agree that past inequities, malicious or innocent in cause, must be rectified before minorities and women can truly have the SAME chance. To not have appropriate representation of these groups thoughout our society can reduce the chances an individual might have by conveying the impression that such representation is not possible. In not seeing any of "one's own kind" represented in high-status or leadership positions, a feeling of lower self-value is generally instilled in people; and how one feels about oneself goes a long way in determining how sucessful one can be. This isn't a "flame", just something more to think about. "The moving hand writes ..." Don
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/02/86)
In article <527@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >When I was majoring in math at the University of Colorado, about two thirds >of us students, undergraduates and graduates, were women. The professors >were mostly men, though. Here at Berkeley about 35% of the undergraduates, 15% of the graduates, 5% of the post-docs and visitors, and 2% of the faculty in the math department are women. I've seen several graduate classes with 0 or 1 female students. >So maybe the stereotype is mistaken? (They are occasionally, I've noticed.) >Or was CU really abnormal in this respect? No and yes. There are good female mathematicians, but not many. Only one has had the ultimate honor: the eponymous adjective 'noetherian' has become so common one has to check one's context for its meaning. (A math major, eh? Peace and Good!) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (03/03/86)
In article <1694@utah-gr.UUCP> donn@utah-gr.UUCP writes: >[...] >A woman who quits school when men who are more persistent get their >degrees; a woman who accepts a lower-paying job than a man would, as a >nurse or an elementary school teacher or a housewife; a woman who >settles for 'being happy' instead of 'being successful'; a woman who >puts her livelihood in the hands of men -- such a woman is going to be >swinging from men's chains for the rest of her life. If the men are >nice to her, she'll be happy pickin' cotton and singin' gospel music; >if the men are hard on her, THERE WON'T BE A DAMNED THING SHE CAN DO >ABOUT IT. [...] >All of these women had accepted >society's guff that they shouldn't have to try too hard, shouldn't >aspire to more than the second income in a middle-class home with time >out to raise the kids. And what happens when they find themselves >with three kids, no earning potential, and a husband who likes to drink >a lot and punch them out? What happens when they're divorced or >widowed and forced to live on welfare? It's a lie that women don't >need to be independent. > I think there are two "lies" going around. The first you have identified: women do not need to be able to take care of themselves. The second is: men should take care of women. This particular lie causes men to discourage women from becoming independent. If women can take care of themselves then men can not fulfill their positions. Some men, like my father, get uncomfortable when they realize their wife is perfectly capable of taking care of herself. (I really do not expect anyone on this network to claim this insecurity.) -- P. K. Whitehurst hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur +-------------------------------------------------------+ | General Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and | | do not necessarily reflect the opinions | | of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. | +-------------------------------------------------------+
jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) (03/04/86)
>A woman who quits school when men who are more persistent get their >degrees; a woman who accepts a lower-paying job than a man would, as a >nurse or an elementary school teacher or a housewife; a woman who >settles for 'being happy' instead of 'being successful'; a woman who >puts her livelihood in the hands of men -- such a woman is going to be >swinging from men's chains for the rest of her life. If the men are >nice to her, she'll be happy pickin' cotton and singin' gospel music; >if the men are hard on her, THERE WON'T BE A DAMNED THING SHE CAN DO >ABOUT IT. > I CAN understand what you are saying...but WHO said they would take a lower-paying job than a man? There are MANY men and women who make more than I do, however, if, at my job, a man started work at the same time as me, as a secretary, same experience, similar duties...you bet your sweet a** I would complain...or forge ahead. Quite frankly, I AM MAD (although I try hard not to be :-)). I am tired of SOME people thinking that I should feel belittled because I'm not an engineer, doctor, lawyer (yet!), etc. Fine, lable gratification in terms of professional status and salary. But what about the real gratification? How do you think a teacher (all levels) feels when h/she completed a day of work KNOWING that she ACTUALLY benefitted young people. Can you truly consider this person unseccessful? Sure, h/she's not making nearly as much as alot of you out there and its a damn shame...h/she desirves it. But h/she DID SOMETHING GREAT...doesn't anyone care about that? Is teaching not successful? Or about the nurse...the person who you ACTUALLY SEE during your hospital visit? I don't know what goes into the nursing profession, but I DO know that when I had my babies, it wasn't the doctor who I screamed for (well, it hurts!), and it wasn't the doctor who provided much needed comfort. And it wasn't the doctor who gave the woman in the next bed (after a C-section) the medication. IT WASN'T THE DOCTOR WHO SAID "CALL IF YOU NEED ANYTHING". Who was that masked man, anyway? Or the secretary (yup...thats me!), who in most cases is the right hand man to the boss. I've seen bosses who panicked when their secretaries were out. SOME of these people simply could not do it without their secs. Or the housewife? This is where I am MOST defensive. My mom was/is a domestic engineer. She was THE STRENGTH when my father was in Vietnam (lets talk about Vietnam...another defensive subject!!) I don't know many people out there who could watch the news EVERY NIGHT, seeing what was going on in Khe Sanh, knowing that your four children could very well be without a father within the next few minutes, and you without your husband, and NOT GO CRAZY. The GOOD? How about being able to watch your kids grow up. In today's society, no matter what one's income (greater income, greater expenses) it seems MOST married people rely on two salaries. Although there are those of us who can get by without two incomes, it does cause a strain, therefore, there are those of us who are MISSING what most of our mothers were able to have. If SOME people want to talk about STRENGTH, not to mention gratification, look at the above. If you do not consider the above worthwhile...fine, I already know your opinion...but flame away anyhow. The people (most of you who are active on this group, it seems) have made it, or are close to it. THAT IS GREAT. You desirve admiration. But for Gods sake, is it your right not to include those who are of lower job status simply because YOU think that nursing is demeaning?, or housewifing is lazy?, or secretaries get chased around their chairs by bosses?. YOU ARE WRONG. >Does this sound any better when a man says it? A little...you left out the "you're not creative" "you don't impress me" "think lady think" "bullshit" "turnabout is fair play" "I'm better than you because I earn *&( bucks and I live alone and can do any damn thing I want" crap. But it did sting. jlh
chk@purdue.UUCP (Chuck Koelbel) (03/04/86)
In article <551@hoptoad.uucp>, laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: > In article <680@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: > >What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the > >assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on > >h/er membership in a group. > > We were discusisng this in net.politics.theory a while ago. I still think > that sexism and racism involve the assumption that a person is *inferior* > based on he/r membership in a group. Not everybody who reads politics > theory agrees with me. > I'd modify Laura's definition to say that statements which involve any difference in quality (positive or negative) are sexist or racist. For example, "Men make better mathematicians because they are logical thinkers" counts as sexist in my book. I'm not sure Laura's definition would classify it as sexist. > I get very worried about political movements which can't tell the difference > between a statement of fact and a slur. Are their perceptions so warped > by their ideology that they cannot perceive what is? I wouldn't call their perceptions "warped" so much as "blurred". Often when you are close to a problem, statements get emotionally charged (even if they are not intended to be). This makes picking out facts from slurs difficult. Adding to this problem is the fact that most facts can be used to "prove" slurs. ("More mathematicians are men because men think more logically than women" - where exactly does the fact end?) Unfortunately, I don't have a foolproof system for communicating facts so that they cannot be misinterpreted - if anybody does, please let me know. (Better yet, post it to the net - it would solve a LOT of problems!) So it looks like we'll just have to muddle along with our faulty perceptions for the fore- seeable future. Chuck Koelbel PS Please note that any statements above concerning men, women, math, and logical thinking are purely for illustrating points. They are NOT my personal views!
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (03/04/86)
In article <12125@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes: >In article <527@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >>When I was majoring in math at the University of Colorado, about two thirds >>of us students, undergraduates and graduates, were women. The professors >>were mostly men, though. >Here at Berkeley about 35% of the undergraduates, 15% of the graduates, >5% of the post-docs and visitors, and 2% of the faculty in the math >department are women. I've seen several graduate classes with 0 or 1 >female students. >>So maybe the stereotype is mistaken? (They are occasionally, I've noticed.) >>Or was CU really abnormal in this respect? >No and yes. There are good female mathematicians, but not many. Only one >has had the ultimate honor: the eponymous adjective 'noetherian' has become >so common one has to check one's context for its meaning. I agree with Matthew Wiener that, at present, women are grossly underrepresented in math. When I did math at Cambridge the figures were, if anything, worse than the Berkeley ones. But I've noticed, perhaps wishfully, a mini-trend of outstandingly good young female mathematicians. (One egregious example is a girl(*) at Oxford who's just taken a math B.A. in two years, and got double the marks of the next candidate(**).) I believe that math, more than most subjects, requires confidence and positive feedback to encourage development, and those are hard to acquire if your teacher (at high school even more than at college) doesn't expect you to be any good. Once that changes, so will the gender imbalance. Adrian Kent (*) I use the term deliberately. She's 13. (**) I know exam marks are not a perfect predictor of great research. But nobody who's taught her doubts that she'll be very very good.
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (03/05/86)
donn@utah-gr.UUCP says: >A woman who quits school when men who are more persistent get their >degrees; a woman who accepts a lower-paying job than a man would, as a >nurse or an elementary school teacher or a housewife; a woman who >settles for 'being happy' instead of 'being successful'; a woman who >puts her livelihood in the hands of men -- such a woman is going to be >swinging from men's chains for the rest of her life. If the men are >nice to her, she'll be happy pickin' cotton and singin' gospel music; >if the men are hard on her, THERE WON'T BE A DAMNED THING SHE CAN DO >ABOUT IT. > >This society teaches its men to be independent. Mothers tell their >sons, 'Johnny, if you don't do well in school you won't be able to get >a job when you grow up.' Fathers say, 'Get a job, son. A REAL job.' >Daughters are indulged. They are directed to take dance classes >instead of advanced algebra, art appreciation instead of physics, home >ec instead of shop. Don't get me wrong -- this world has a place for >excellent dancers and great artists. But how many of these girls who >took dance are going to become professional dancers? How many will >become mathematicians, engineers, auto mechanics? How many will be >able to dictate the course of their future careers? Every last one of >those girls who settled for something less than the boys did is >contributing to the stereotype which (SOME) men use to oppress truly >competitive women. That stereotype says, women aren't serious about >their futures, we can't count on women to be as determined on the job >as men, they never persevere. > >Does this sound any better when a man says it? Frankly, no it does not. Because I don't believe all those things you said in the preceding paragraphs here. Let's face it. I'm average. I came from a basic middle-class home. My mother never went to college. My father only made it through 2 years of college before the expenses of raising a family won out over the expenses of going to college. On both sides, my grandparents were farming people. I had four sisters and the basic society provided education through high school. At _no_ point in time was I instructed, intimidated or even had it implied that I should be anything less than everything I possibly could be. I was always the tops in my class as far as academics went. I was in the top 10% of my graduating class at high school and quite easily made it into college, was even selected for the honors program. I was continually encouraged to extend myself and reach for as much as I could possibly get out of life--this from family, friends and school personnel. Most of all I was encouraged at all points to be able to support myself and any family I might have, the rationale being that if I never married I would be able to support myself and have a rewarding life, and that if I did marry I would also be able to support myself and have a rewarding life. No one at any point in my upbringing that I can remember ever said that having a marketable skill which brought appropriate remuneration was _not_ a desireable goal. I'm sorry, I simply do _not_ believe you when you say that women are encouraged by society to be less than they can be. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (03/05/86)
In article <1977@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> This is the point of affirmative action programs - to be sexist or >> racist in the opposite direction in the hopes of evening out the >> unfairnesses. I support the concept of affirmative action > > ...and I do not, in general. I have no objection to watchdog-type >programs or laws that make sure minorities and women are given the SAME >chance, but I do not support "reverse" racism and sexism either. NO >preference should be given to ANYONE, even a minority or a female, based on >sex or race, and that's all most affirmative action quota-based programs are. > >--Greg There's only one problem with this -- there are no really more effective ways of balancing things out *at this time*. The biggest problem women have been facing has been getting past the stereotypes of certian types of jobs are suitable for men and others for women. This is still very much a problem -- even more so the last 5 years. I have been reading of a couple of studies (I've not been able to get ahold of the references - if anyone can find them please let me know) that have come out in the last month and a half that have been pointing out this is the problem women are still running into (I think Science a couple of weeks back). Employers and personnel types have a very stereotypical idea of what jobs women can(and should) handle. The problem is that they still are hiring accordingly. One of the results of the studies was that AFFIRMATIVE ACTION actually helped tremendously to cut down this disparaty in hiring in certian job catagories that are quite typically heavily male oriented. The reason is that the threat of fines imposable on companies served to act as a moderator of this stereotypic thinking in the hiring practices. No other programs had as much effect. The problem over the last 5 years is that the current administration has been undermining all such programs. The strides that were made are being eroded badly. So, until someone comes up with any thing better, I would rather keep it around a while -- maybe until a few of the stereotypes are forgotten. (Beleive me it can be done. In my immediate family, all of the females (4) are in non-typical fields (1 areonautical engineer;1 areospace engineer; 1 geologist/computer researcher in AI; 1 National Forest Fire Management officer (she sets slash burns and commands a crew putting out forest fires around here). And we've all had our problems with companies.) (Sometimes I wish the guys could take our places sometime to see what it's like.:-) P.M.Pincha-Wagener
linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) (03/06/86)
> In article <527@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: > >When I was majoring in math at the University of Colorado, about two thirds > >of us students, undergraduates and graduates, were women. The professors > >were mostly men, though. and Mathew Wiener, UCBerkeley, replies: > Here at Berkeley about 35% of the undergraduates, 15% of the graduates, > 5% of the post-docs and visitors, and 2% of the faculty in the math > department are women. I've seen several graduate classes with 0 or 1 > female students. Very interesting statistics, wouldn't you say? > > >So maybe the stereotype is mistaken? (They are occasionally, I've noticed.) > >Or was CU really abnormal in this respect? > > No and yes. There are good female mathematicians, but not many. Only one ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has had the ultimate honor: the eponymous adjective 'noetherian' has become > so common one has to check one's context for its meaning. > > (A math major, eh? Peace and Good!) > > ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 When I was an undergraduate (CS) at Berkeley, there was a flap over hiring a woman professor in mathematics. They decided against her, ostensibly because she could not speak English well enough (forgive me, the details are hazy, it was, uh, quite a few years ago -- I think she was Eastern European or Russian). Anyway, I remember being somewhat incensed at that line of reasoning, as I had just suffered through a math class given by a tenured professor who spoke such broken English it was painful. But that hadn't stopped them hiring HIM. -- Disclaimer #1: These are *only* my opinions. Disclaimer #2: These are only *my* opinions. Linda Mundy {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda Relational Technology, Inc., Alameda, CA
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (03/06/86)
In article <79@randvax.UUCP> jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) writes: >Or the housewife? This is where I am MOST defensive. My mom was/is a >domestic engineer. Oh? That's quite interesting. I've never heard of this degree before, what University did she get it from? Why do you feel it necessary to claim a title for your mother? If she was a housewife, and did a good job of it, there is nothing dishonorable about it. There is no need to claim she is a "domestic engineer". By claiming a false title, you have *decreased* my respect for you, rather than increasing respect for your mom. Other than that I agreed with your article. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (03/07/86)
In article <530@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: >I'm sorry, I simply do _not_ believe you when you say that women are >encouraged by society to be less than they can be. My cousins, who would now be in their 30's, were told that the boys should go college because they needed a good job to support a family. The girls were told, and believed, that they should get a nice job after high school and live at home until they married. My Uncle taught them what he believed. -- P. K. Whitehurst hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur +-------------------------------------------------------+ | General Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and | | do not necessarily reflect the opinions | | of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. | +-------------------------------------------------------+
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (03/07/86)
Donn Seely: >>This society teaches its men to be independent. ... >>Daughters are indulged. They are directed to take dance classes >>instead of advanced algebra, art appreciation instead of physics, home >>ec instead of shop. ... >>Does this sound any better when a man says it? Terry Grevstad: > >Frankly, no it does not. ... > >Let's face it. I'm average. I came from a basic middle-class home. >My mother never went to college. My father only made it through 2 >years of college before the expenses of raising a family ... > >At _no_ point in time was I instructed, intimidated or even had it >implied that I should be anything less than everything I possibly >could be. ... > >Most of all I was encouraged at all points to be able to support >myself and any family I might have ... > >I'm sorry, I simply do _not_ believe you when you say that women are >encouraged by society to be less than they can be. Seems to me, Terry, that you've been lucky. It's certainly not true that *all* girls respond to the general societal pressures that Donn describes, but my observations indicate that many of them do. I don't know your ethnic background, but some cultures have a much stronger tradition of self-sufficiency than others. I'm guessing that you're from one of those, and that the support your family and culture gave you was enough to reinforce the good pressures from society and downplay the bad - at least in the area of personal independence. Donn's right to point out that sons are encouraged to be independent and that daughters are indulged. A couple of years ago, I saw on PBS an account of an experiment with toddlers. When the a child was dressed as a boy, the subject adult let the child have a lot of freedom and explore the surroundings. When the *same* child was dressed as a girl, the *same* adult was protective and indulgent. (There were some other particulars that I no longer remember, but they all lined up the same way.) The implications of this kind of treatment are life-long and pervasive: men tend to explore and women tend to follow. (Please don't take this out of context!) -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (03/07/86)
In article <142@rtech.UUCP> linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) writes: > >When I was an undergraduate (CS) at Berkeley, there was a flap over hiring a >woman professor in mathematics. They decided against her, ostensibly because >she could not speak English well enough (forgive me, the details are hazy, it >was, uh, quite a few years ago -- I think she was Eastern European or Russian). >Anyway, I remember being somewhat incensed at that line of reasoning, as I had >just suffered through a math class given by a tenured professor who spoke such >broken English it was painful. But that hadn't stopped them hiring HIM. >-- >Linda Mundy {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda An optimist might say that the reason they didn't hire her was because they learned their lesson about professors who can't speak from the very guy you mention having as a math professor. Maybe they sort of got stuck with him, not realizing there was a problem until he had been there a long time. Now if there were already several professors there with this problem, then this excuse gets weaker. Anyway, it's still better than saying they didn't hire her because she didn't know how to make coffee, or she wouldn't put out for the dean. Dave "not a flame" Richards
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (03/08/86)
In article <79@randvax.UUCP> jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) writes: > >How do you think a teacher (all >levels) feels when h/she completed a day of work KNOWING that she ACTUALLY >benefitted young people. (I will NOT flame the english used in this article.) How do you think this teacher feels the OTHER 364 days that year?
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (03/08/86)
> > > >This society teaches its men to be independent. Mothers tell their > >sons, 'Johnny, if you don't do well in school you won't be able to get > >a job when you grow up.' Fathers say, 'Get a job, son. A REAL job.' > >Daughters are indulged. They are directed to take dance classes > >instead of advanced algebra, art appreciation instead of physics, home > > > > Frankly, no it does not. Because I don't believe all those things you > said in the preceding paragraphs here. > > Let's face it. I'm average. I came from a basic middle-class home. > > At _no_ point in time was I instructed, intimidated or even had it > implied that I should be anything less than everything I possibly > could be. I was always the tops in my class as far as academics went. > I was continually encouraged to extend myself and reach for as much as > I could possibly get out of life--this from family, friends and school > personnel. > My experience was totally different. I was told by my parents that if I did not major in elementary education, and that if I did not live at home until I was married, that they would not pay for my college education (which, at that time, was at the University of Pennsylvania). They also threatened to try to "take me out of school". At the age of 17 I had to go to a lawyer to protect my enrollment status, and I also started supporting myself for my education. My parents punished me for receiving a prize in creative writing at my high school graduation. Needless to say, I don't speak to them anymore. As for art appreciation, I have a masters in EE, and am studying to become a musician. I think art is a great subject for women! And I would like to see the discrimination ended in the arts, with women having the full opportunity to achieve in this area. Sure, women have plenty opportunities to design missiles and sell real estate, let's do some of the enjoyable, spiritual things too!
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (03/08/86)
cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: [Downplaying the worth of how a teacher feels when teaching]: > > How do you think this teacher feels the OTHER 364 days that year? > > Probably pretty good: if they're a good teacher, then they probably have quite a few good teaching days. If they're a lousy teacher, they probably don't even notice. Unless you've done it, don't knock it, cheryl. In fact, even if you have done it, don't knock it! There is little more joyful than actually getting some foreign concept across to some unknowing body of persons. Imagine how good *you'd* feel if your concepts were properly expressed so that people could comprehend them well enough to form an opinion? Looking out over the blank stares of people who have never heard of UNIX, for example, and then seeing the glint of "Ah Hah!" in their eyes when they finally understand a particular concept, is a joy that makes the low pay, bad working conditions, and other remarkably bad parts of teaching all somehow worth it. Now, I don't support my current life style as a teacher. I don't think I could, as consultant pay has spoiled me a bit. But if I won Lotto, I'd probably end up teaching somewhere for free. And, by the way, if a teacher is serious about teaching, they spend a great deal of "the other 364 days per year" planning their next class, and hoping that they'll be effective in their communication skills. -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) (03/10/86)
In article <1844@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy (Snoopy) writes: >In article <79@randvax.UUCP> jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) writes: > >>Or the housewife? This is where I am MOST defensive. My mom was/is a >>domestic engineer. > >Oh? That's quite interesting. I've never heard of this degree before, >what University did she get it from? > You're right...I just thought it was the "trendy" thing to say|*). Correction: She is a HOUSEWIFE, and a damn good one! Thanks for the insight. jlh
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/10/86)
I hope that at least some of you who are participating in this "careers" discussion caught the latest episode of the PBS program, "Adam Smith's Money World". A good part of the program was devoted to a woman who is now involved in trading with China -- I'm sorry that I forget her name; she had an academic background in economics and Eastern languages, worked for a couple large organizations running their Japan and China divisions, and since then has formed her own company to negotiate trade and barter deals between Western companies and Chinese suppliers or customers. Her working conditions were mentioned -- mostly 12+ hour days, 6 or 7 days a week, living out of bleak hotel rooms, enduring spartan conditions in various off-the-beaten-track Chinese locations. No social life possible. She loves it, or at least gives that impression. Now, to me, that sounds like hell. She's probably making vast amounts of money, and seems to be enjoying doing what she does. It would not suit me at all, and the money would not make up for doing what she has to do. This is simply due to a fundamental difference in our psyches. I think this is the kind of disparity in viewpoint that some net participants have, and neither can understand the others' attitudes. That is why some will decry what others have done as "giving in" to the malign forces of oppression, and those will respond with resentment against what they see as "holier-than-thou"ness and an attempt to run their lives in someone else's image. I doubt if there is any solution; I don't think that it really is possible for people so involved or committed to a certain mindset or attitude to "back away" long or far enough to view the situation dispassionately or objectively. There is really no common ground for meeting and discussion. I'm not offerring any solution. If I knew one I'd be Leo Buscaglia or somebody like that! :-) But maybe it can be remembered that we are speaking different languages, from different world-views, and trying to "convert" each other, or even make each other somehow "understand", is futile and a waste of energy. Will
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (03/11/86)
-- > >Since (in my experience) all the secretaries I have met happened to be > >women, I think it is hardly sexist to think that the next secretary... > While Linda is on vacation (a well deserved one), > the temp typing for me is an undergraduate man. > He's very good with a word processor. > > Cheryl Yeah, but does he have nice legs? :-) -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Mar 86 [20 Ventose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/13/86)
In article <936@felix.UUCP>, daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: > In article <142@rtech.UUCP> linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) writes: > >When I was an undergraduate (CS) at Berkeley, there was a flap over hiring a > >woman professor in mathematics. They decided against her, ostensibly > >because she could not speak English well enough > > An optimist might say that the reason they didn't hire her was because they > learned their lesson about professors who can't speak from the very guy you > mention having as a math professor. The lady in question is Marina Ratner. She is now tenured at Berkeley. Her ability in English was not a real issue, but the student paper tried to make it into one. The question, as always, was *quality of research*. And the misogynists can always denigrate research and appear objective. The example becomes better if shifted - Julia Robinson was one of four who contributed to solving Hilbert's Tenth Problem (outstanding for 70 years), and probably made the major contribution, but not the final link. She was never offered a position at Berkeley until her husband retired. She was awarded a quarter-million dollar stipend from the MacArthur Foundation in, I think, 1980, was elected to the National Academy of Science, and chaired the American Mathematical Society. She has recently died from leukemia. Some years ago, I had the misfortune to listen to one of the world's great logicians put down her work as not really worthy of serious consideration as good mathematics, as a small group of us went to dinner. It was disgusting. I would have given almost anything to have a fraction of her talent. I dined elsewhere. On another note, I suspect Adrian Kent is talking of his experience at Cambridge? Peter Ladkin