[soc.feminism] Defining Equity

jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (09/19/90)

In article <12422@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>A liberal in the classical mode might argue
>that we should root out unfair kinds of discrimination wherever we
>find them, but that we should be satisfied with what group differences
>remain after this is done.  My critique was aimed primarily against
>those who argue both lines, choosing the one that is most convenient
>at the time.
>
>Ms. Parcel describes an ethical stance where neither assumption is
>made:
>
>> I think there will turn out to be innate differences, when all the
>> socialization is stripped off.  I hope these differences are smaller
>> than they appear now. ...

What I was saying is that IMO the speaker is looking at a complicated
system, and aspects of unwarranted discrimination based on false
assumptions vs. inequity based on systemic optimizations for certain
qualities are mixed up. This is especially true for a system like
business where making deals with other people who have assets, and
therefore comfort in communications, is a major part of what goes on.
Not everyone is as careful in their semantics as Russell, and not able
to say "well I think this particular aspect of the problem is 60%
stereotyping, 20% poor socialization of the 'victims', and 20% a flaw
in the original system design."  I do agree that people should try to
be more clear in their wording, but I blame the 20-second sound bite,
which is doing bad things to *all* political communication, not just
feminism.

>> But, even if it turns out that some of this *is* inborn, IF THE
>> BUSINESS WORLD IS DESIGNED BY MEN FOR MEN, then it is likely designed
>> to optimize for male traits, and I OBJECT TO THIS.  It *is* a form of
>> discrimination to create a world that witholds food and shelter and
>> freedom from those who do not match the traits of the group in
>> control. ...

>How one argues for something affects the particular results that one
>reaches.  If one is seeking economic equality between the sexes,
>regardless of the source of inequality, then instead of
>anti-discrimination and affirmative action measures, one might lean
>toward more direct palliatives, such as a gender sensitive taxing
>scheme or other redistributive program.

I am seeking more complete feedback for the system of business and
government and home.  That means not leaving out contact with, and
input from, people who are uncomfortably aware of circumstances
different from those traditionally listened to.  If a larger
percentage of congresscritters were *personally* caring for
Alzheimer's victims, or a large number of CEO's were *personally*
taking kids to the doctor, even their professional decisions and
intuitions about what is reasonable might change.  And having
colleagues at the very next desk who are black, asian, female, etc,
makes the concerns of these same people among customers or neighbors
of the business look less remote.

>If Ms. Parcel is going to base her recommendations on egalitarianism,
>she also needs to consider the broader implications of this.  Even
>more than the business world being "designed" by men for men, it is
>"designed" by smart, ambitious people for the benefit of smart,
>ambitious people. [deleted for brevity]  It is plain that chronic depression
>can severely hamper one's business aspirations.  Should we seek
>economic equality between the depressed and those with a normal
>emotional framework?

If we could come up with a pill that increases everyone's intelligence
to the high end of the curve, we might well distribute it.  If we
could come up with a pill that ends depression without side effects,
we might well distribute it.  What about a pill that makes everyone a
man?  Is femininity a defect?

>(In a social system, there is little difference
>between "encouraging" a kind of behavior "exploiting" it for the
>general good.  As economists are fond of saying, one gets more of the
>kind of behavior that is rewarded, and less of the kind that is
>taxed.)

What if the tax is deferred until after the tenure of the
decision-maker?  (Massive discrimination leading to later civil war,
or depleting resources too fast, might be in this category.)

What if being stupid or tired is taxed, but making *other* people
depressed or slow or otherwise less able to compete is rewarded?  Will
we get more or fewer disabled people?  (Poor health care, especially
for pregnant and nursing mothers, or injured workers, has this effect,
which may or may not have long-term ill effects on the decider
depending on whether or not the victims can be permanently ignored or
oppressed vs having to be cared for.)

What if people can be taught that they will be rewarded in Heaven, or
by their adoring spouses, if they help hold a system together at their
own expense?

>Ms. Parcel does indeed escape the problem of determining whether
>gender differences are innate or cultural.  But she trades it for a
>series of general social problems, some of which have plagued
>political philosophers for generations.

The people looking at these issues are looking at them with tools
developed for other social problems, and finding that the tools yield
important understandings of the problem.

Maybe it's time for the economists to get together with these folks
plus some Chaos-type mathemeticians and sociologists and
psychologists, and come up with better models which take into account
the non-expendable work of subsistence farmers, and of women who care
for relatives, and treat natural resources as capital.Then they might
learn to give us more helpful advice about how to survive, as a
species, with a reasonable quality of life, for a long time.

(The argument could be made that the modern economic climate is the
tail-end of a start-up period with much opportunity due to new
territory, which will soon settle into a cycle around one or more
strange attractors (such as ecologically unsound booms followed by
sociologically dangerous busts), and that the benefits of the very
economic systems upon which they have been basing their theories may
be harder to obtain once there is nowhere to expand to.  I hear
third-world folks tell stories about areas where there isn't land for
sale, so one cannot work hard and make one's place in the world.)