mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) (03/05/91)
A very simple (series of) question(s): How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be nowadays? What form does it take? What kinds of people perpetrate it? I personally feel I have never been consciously sexist, but maybe unconsciously... I get called a sexist when I go to CMU Women's Center meetings, though, probably because I'm not a raving radical feminist (difficult to do when you're male :-) ______________________________________________________________ |\ /| | \/ | ike Greelish Carnegie Mellon U. undergrad, professional writing major quote: "Everything is broken." ---Bob Dylan stupid disclaimer: My opinions are.
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) (03/06/91)
mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: >A very simple (series of) question(s): >How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be >nowadays? Lots. > What form does it take? Unthinking assumptions about appropriate behaviour patterns in various circumstances, be they social, academic, business, political, etc. etc. >What kinds of people perpetrate it? Almost everyone who is unaware of the problem, unless they have been in an environment where such behavioural differences did not exist. (!!!) Almost everyone who is aware of the problem, because they are consciously trying to reject their first, learned reaction, and then trying not to over-react, and then trying not to over-over-react... For most people, however, at each stage the damage/difference in the resulting behaviour is less. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A peace I hope with honour." - Disraeli 1878
bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (03/08/91)
>How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be >nowadays? What form does it take? One still common form is the belief that women are "physically inferior" -- a phrase that may be found even occasionally in acadamic writing -- i.e. that they have to be smaller, weaker, slower, less enduring etc than males. Sex role stereotypes serve to maintain this view and even to give it some reality by such notions that certain occupations and certain sports are unsuitable for women because of their hard physical requirements. The bottom line of this is an image of women as physically inefficacious and helpless -- as passive objects and rape victims. Thus, physical empowerment of women is a very important goal. These issues have been treated by e.g. Helen Lenskij ("Out Of Bounds: Women, Sport and Sexuality"), K.F. Dyer ("Catching up the Men"), Nancy Theberge and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Women's bodybuilding is one of the most revolutionary movements in the history of womankind, as it redefines what a woman is and can be. Right now it's still a frontier. But it's setting standards for what women will be tomorrow." -- The Valkyries
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/08/91)
In <1991Mar5.120658.7987@ora.com> mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: | A very simple (series of) question(s): | | How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be | nowadays? What form does it take? What kinds of people perpetrate | it? Almost all of those who populate the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, the Executive, the corresponding state, county, and municipal offices, the management of the Fortune 500, the upper echelons of the military and Academia, and the system administration of all these computers we write on, are male -- and you gotta ask these questions?
rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) (03/12/91)
In his article Thomas Gramstad (bfu@ifi.uio.no) writes >One still common form is the belief that women are "physically >inferior" -- a phrase that may be found even occasionally in acadamic >writing -- i.e. that they have to be smaller, weaker, slower, less >enduring etc than males. Sex role stereotypes serve to maintain this >view and even to give it some reality by such notions that certain >occupations and certain sports are unsuitable for women because of >their hard physical requirements. The bottom line of this is an image and Jean Marie Diaz ( ambar@ora.com) writes >Regarding physiological differences between male/female brains, this >turns out to be largely bogus. There seemed to be some VERY minor >structural differences, but the sample size was quite small and there >has yet to be independent corroboration. I would like to ask one question in this context. Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. Atleast here, they cannot claim any disadvantage of physical or mental "weakness", can they ? It will be a good point to prove the world that women also have mental prowess equal to men as they are proving in other fields. Any takers ? cheers from yet another MCP.
rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) (03/14/91)
In his article Thomas Gramstad (bfu@ifi.uio.no) writes >One still common form is the belief that women are "physically >inferior" -- a phrase that may be found even occasionally in acadamic >writing -- i.e. that they have to be smaller, weaker, slower, less >enduring etc than males. Sex role stereotypes serve to maintain this >view and even to give it some reality by such notions that certain >occupations and certain sports are unsuitable for women because of >their hard physical requirements. The bottom line of this is an image and Jean Marie Diaz ( ambar@ora.com) writes >Regarding physiological differences between male/female brains, this >turns out to be largely bogus. There seemed to be some VERY minor >structural differences, but the sample size was quite small and there >has yet to be independent corroboration. I would like to ask one question in this context. Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. Atleast here, they cannot claim any disadvantage of physical or mental "weakness" can they. It will be a good point to prove the world that women also have mental prowess equal to men as they are proving in other fields. Any takers ? cheers from yet another MCP.
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.EDU (Jim Mccoy) (03/14/91)
In article <9103072251.697@mydog.UUCP>, gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: |> |> In <1991Mar5.120658.7987@ora.com> mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: |> | A very simple (series of) question(s): |> | |> | How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be |> | nowadays? What form does it take? What kinds of people perpetrate |> | it? |> |> Almost all of those who populate the U.S. Senate, the House of |> Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, the |> Executive, the corresponding state, county, and municipal offices, |> the management of the Fortune 500, the upper echelons of the |> military and Academia, and the system administration of all these |> computers we write on, are male -- and you gotta ask these |> questions? I think that your analysis here is slightly flawed. Please remember that no one (male or female) just leaves business school and starts work as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. No one starts out at the top. Getting there takes years, even decades of hard work. If you consider the fact that women were not considered for any sort of power position (management, or any other position exercising significant power over others) 40-50 years ago then it is not surprising that there are very few of them in upper level power positions. When women first entered the workforce they faced oppresive levels of sexism and they were openly discriminated against. Once women began to be accepted in the workforce (60s and 70s) they still faced discrimination, but the possibility for real advancement existed. Again, there is no reason to expect them to be instantly moved into high level positions, but as time progressed women have been able to move up the corporate ladder. Each successive generation of women in the workforce builds upon the advances of those who preceeded them and establishes a foundation for those who will follow. While the final jump to the top may be more difficult than some of the middle levels, it is inevitable. It just takes time. (As a sort of disclaimer here, I should note that as long as women are barred from combat duty in the US military they will probably never occupy any positions of authority.) jim -- Jim McCoy | "I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | having an old friend for dinner." #include <disclaimer.h> | --Hannibal Lector
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/20/91)
mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: | |> | How much sexism (against women) do people perceive there to be | |> | nowadays? What form does it take? What kinds of people perpetrate | |> | it? gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: | |> Almost all of those who populate the U.S. Senate, the House of | |> Representatives, [and most high offices] are male -- and you | |> gotta ask these questions? mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.EDU (Jim Mccoy) writes: | I think that your analysis here is slightly flawed. | | Please remember that no one (male or female) just leaves business | school and starts work as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. No one | starts out at the top. Getting there takes years, even decades of | hard work. ...[etc.].... One of the things we're often told is that there was sexism once, but now it's gone away, and there is no need for any offsetting mechanism (affirmative action, for example) because there is no discrimination to offset. The conversation above, however, reminds us that history counts. Affirmative action may not be the best way of dealing with it, but neither is handwaving. As long as there's a Fortune 500, and 498 or so of its CEOs are male, something called "sexism" is in effect. -- Gordon Fitch
sharring@cs.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) (03/20/91)
In article <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) writes: [regarding the ongoing discussion on differences in the brain structure of women and men] >I would like to ask one question in this context. Why don't the members >of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing with men in the World >Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. Atleast here, they >cannot claim any disadvantage of physical or mental "weakness", can they ? >It will be a good point to prove the world that women also have mental >prowess equal to men as they are proving in other fields. Any takers ? > >cheers from yet another MCP. I'm a master in the U.S. Chess Federation and I have played chess for about 12 years. Having said that, let me explain why there has never been a female world chess champ. It's basically a matter of numbers; many more men play chess than women. Why? Well, once again it is probably because of societal pressures which "say" that men are more fit for math, science, chess, etc. This serves to drive young girls away from such interests and pursuits. Recent sucesses by the now famous (Hungarian) Polgar sisters have provided further evidence of the fallacy of this thinking. Judit Polgar, the youngest of the three, is on pace to break Bobby Fischer's record for the youngest *person* to receive the Grandmaster title. Even in the historical record, there is evidence that women had the capacity to be very strong chess players. For more information refer to the chess career in the early-mid 20th century of Vera Menchik. The odds are certainly against a female world champ in the near future, mainly because there are fewer women who play. Hopefully this will change if/when society quits driving females (and males) into stereotypical pursuits. Unfortunately, the attitude expressed above has been expressed by male World champs such as Bobby Fischer and even Garri Kasparov. The ultimate silencing of these critics would indeed be a female champ. The Polgars' example of refusing to play in women's tournaments is a good one; it is simply absurd to separate the sexes in a sport that is 90% mental. ---Steve Harrington
arw@world.std.COM (Anthony R Wuersch) (03/22/91)
sharring@cs.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) writes: >In article <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) writes: >>Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing >>with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. First they have to win in the Candidate's tournaments. >Many more men play chess than women. Perhaps more men than women *enjoy* chess. >Why? Well, once again it is >probably because of societal pressures which "say" that men are more >fit for math, science, chess, etc. This serves to drive young girls >away from such interests and pursuits. Ah, young girls have no will of their own. More likely, they know that girls don't play chess. That it's a social fact doesn't make it less true. Many cultures have fixed ideas of gender-"normal". >Recent sucesses by the now famous (Hungarian) Polgar sisters have >provided further evidence of the fallacy of this thinking. For cultures where girls don't play chess, I perceive no fallacy. The social fact remains. Habits don't propagate from one culture to another very easily. How does Hungarian success affect the US, or France, for instance? Speculation: not much. I think girls do play chess in Eastern Europe. Don't Russian schools encourage chess play even, and provide trainers for girls and boys? The hypothesis of different brain development is not refuted. One can claim that significant brain development occurs after birth and is thus influenced by social facts. Language centers left unstimulated don't develop. Maybe so for other centers too. The chess center. >Judit Polgar, the youngest of the three, is on pace to break Bobby >Fischer's record for the youngest *person* to receive the Grandmaster >title. Even in the historical record, there is evidence that women >had the capacity to be very strong chess players. For more information >refer to the chess career in the early-mid 20th century of Vera Menchik. Another Eastern European. The Polgars are interesting in that they were taught at home. Their parents are psychologists, who obtained a special waiver from the Hungarian government in order to use their children as an educational experiment. Since the Polgar father is a chess master, it could be claimed with as much "evidence" that women can play chess, that children of chess masters can play chess. I'm sure their chess centers get developed. >---Steve Harrington Toni Wuersch arw@world.std.com {uunet,bu.edu,bloom-beacon}!world!arw
sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar21.005845.12514@world.std.com> arw@world.std.COM (Anthony R Wuersch) writes: >sharring@cs.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) writes: >>In article <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) writes: >>>Why don't the members of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing >>>with men in the World Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. >First they have to win in the Candidate's tournaments. >>Many more men play chess than women. >Perhaps more men than women *enjoy* chess. What's your point? Even if this were true, what point does it make? Further, if I grant you a point you still failed to address the question of why girls don't enjoy chess as much as boys [again I'm going out of my way to accept your unsubstantiated claim that this is so]. Perhaps if girls don't enjoy chess as much as boys there is a reason--perhaps they are culturally programmed to enjoy things more "feminine". >>Why? Well, once again it is >>probably because of societal pressures which "say" that men are more >>fit for math, science, chess, etc. This serves to drive young girls >>away from such interests and pursuits. >Ah, young girls have no will of their own. More likely, they know >that girls don't play chess. That it's a social fact doesn't make >it less true. Many cultures have fixed ideas of gender-"normal". Again, I fail to see what you are trying to say. Girls certainly have "will of their own", but social pressures can drive away all but the most headstrong. It is very difficult to ignore the negative reactions of peers, especially when one is young. I doubt that I would have had the will to pursue a career in ballet in the backward state [to remain unnamed] that I grew up in. The reason for this is not that I as a male am incapable of ballet, but rather that it would have been severely frowned upon by the rest of the surrounding society. By the time one decides that he/she doesn't care what everyone else thinks, it is too late to become a prodigy at chess, ballet, etc.. >>Recent sucesses by the now famous (Hungarian) Polgar sisters have >>provided further evidence of the fallacy of this thinking. >For cultures where girls don't play chess, I perceive no fallacy. >The social fact remains. Habits don't propagate from one culture >to another very easily. How does Hungarian success affect the US, >or France, for instance? Speculation: not much. Let me rehash what was said and my response to it, and then you can try to show me how it doesn't affect US, France, etc. * The original poster, a self-admitted male chauvinist, argued that women were inferior mentally vis a vis they aren't good chess players * I responded by pointing out (no less than) 4 famous strong female players. Since my evidence provides absolute (verifiable) evidence that women can play chess well, how does this not relate to the countries mentioned? Are you claiming that we are to further discriminate between women in the US and France, and women in eastern Europe? If so, I will parry with the comment that there has never been a *male* world champ from France. Nor has there been a world champ from most countries other than the USSR. It couldn't perhaps be because chess is extremely popular among Soviet males, could it.... >The hypothesis of different brain development is not refuted. One can >claim that significant brain development occurs after birth and is thus >influenced by social facts. Language centers left unstimulated don't >develop. Maybe so for other centers too. The chess center. You seem to know something that I don't. What hypothesis are you referring to? Did I miss a post or something? All I recall was someone claiming that the absence of good women chess players (specifically world champs I suppose) was proof of the inferiority of the female brain. When I responded, I did so merely for kicks because I thought the proposition was so obviously ludicrous that no one would buy it. I guess that I was sadly mistaken. >>Judit Polgar, the youngest of the three, is on pace to break Bobby >>Fischer's record for the youngest *person* to receive the Grandmaster >>title. Even in the historical record, there is evidence that women >>had the capacity to be very strong chess players. For more information >>refer to the chess career in the early-mid 20th century of Vera Menchik. >Another Eastern European. The Polgars are interesting in that they >were taught at home. Their parents are psychologists, who obtained >a special waiver from the Hungarian government in order to use their >children as an educational experiment. Sorry, I forgot that women from eastern Europe aren't really women. Thus, if an eastern European woman plays good chess it doesn't count. You got me again.... >Since the Polgar father is a chess master, it could be claimed with >as much "evidence" that women can play chess, that children of chess >masters can play chess. I'm sure their chess centers get developed. Yes, you are correct. If someone were to come on to this (or any other) newsgroup arguing that children of chessmasters are mentally inferior due to their inability to play chess, it could be refuted by pointing to the Polgar sisters. It's nice to know that the Polgar sisters can be used to refute more than just one silly argument. -----------Steve Harrington Dept. of Chess Studies Texas A&M University
hrdoucet@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Heloise Doucet) (03/28/91)
In article <561@clbull.cl.bull.fr> rao@cl.bull.fr (Srinivasam Rao) writes: >I would like to ask one question in this context. Why don't the members >of the "weaker" sex prove themselves by competing with men in the World >Chess Championship and becoming the world champion. Atleast here, they >cannot claim any disadvantage of physical or mental "weakness", can they ? >It will be a good point to prove the world that women also have mental >prowess equal to men as they are proving in other fields. Any takers ? Well, I have heard that in the junior chess championships that there are girls who do very well. It would be silly to say that they are smarter when they are young than when they are older. Therefore, it would be logical to say that something has dissuaded them from participating when they are older. Can we say "society"? To look at it from another point of view: Few men take part in things that are usually for women only. ie Nursing, Executive Assistant(formerly secretary), Ringette, Synchronized Swimming, Ballet etc.... Many men feel out of place in these activities or they are non-existent because of the stigmas and rules attached to them. For women chess would be similar. I was taught chess when I was very young and soon I could beat my father. BUT none of my other female friends played or were even interested. My interest waned and I didn't improve. I would have had to REALLY love chess to keep at it. Boys would only play with me if they could beat me. Their attitude was "Ha Ha, I won, I'm better than you are". It is no fun playing with people like that. Therefore I don't play chess anymore. I didn't love it that much. If the situation was reversed and the sport was generally a woman's and I was a man I doubt the man would continue in it either. I have seen this happen with boys trying to join our ballet classes. They didn't stay very long. Also, friends of mine that went into nursing say that the men in their class didn't stay very long either. Men, try to start something that mostly women do. See how hard it is. That is how women feel when trying to get ahead in a "man's" activity. I am considered to be strong and assertive by my peers but joining ballet classes and being accepted there was a lot easier than being accepted in the local astronomy club, D&D club, Computer Science, Comic book collecting etc. (That's all for now - I'm starving!) Heloise
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Mar13.192417.5176@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, hrdoucet@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Heloise Doucet) writes: + I would have had to REALLY love chess to keep at it. +Boys would only play with me if they could beat me. Their attitude +was "Ha Ha, I won, I'm better than you are". It is no fun playing +with people like that. Therefore I don't play chess anymore. I +didn't love it that much. There was a program on Nova recently about "The Computer vs. The Human at chess" (sorry I can't recall the name). The current human champion (a Russian whose name I don't remember) talked about the psychological aspects of the game as being as important as the tactical and strategic ones. He spoke of destroying the opponent's ego. He also commented on how the game with the computer was different because there was no psychological confict (well, perhaps with himself, but certainly not against the machine). +If the situation was reversed and the sport was generally a woman's +and I was a man I doubt the man would continue in it either. I have +seen this happen with boys trying to join our ballet classes. They +didn't stay very long. Also, friends of mine that went into nursing +say that the men in their class didn't stay very long either. And when they do it is the men that get most of the recognition. How many female ballet stars are as well known as Baryshnakov (sp?) +Men, try to start something that mostly women do. See how hard it is. +That is how women feel when trying to get ahead in a "man's" activity. In my personal experience I find that there is still a legitimizing aspect to being male, so that I suspect that however hard it is, it isn't as hard as what women have to put up with. -Doug