tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (10/21/89)
Affirmative action starts out as the perception that certain categories of persons are unfairly treated by "society" -- and before anyone reminds me that society consists of individuals, let me temporarily define it here as the summation of interactions of individuals in a community. Such unfairness is thought to be a bad thing, generally by the objects of it, and often by others who for various reasons desire that their society be "fair." However, as one begins to think about the problem, there are certain taboos. For instance, one can conclude that, in a highly competitive society which also maintains rights of inheritance and other strong familial connnections, it is almost certain that inequality between categories of families will persist for many generations. Thus, the situation of black persons in America. However, in thinking of solutions to the problems of the disadvantaged, one is not allowed (in practical politics) to suggest that the structures and traditions of the society be changed very much. Most specifically, the power of existing elites may not be seriously disturbed. Another important taboo is: substantial expenditures of public or private funds may not be demanded. Thus the affirmative action solution: if the figures are wrong for one disadvantaged group, change the figures, more or less by force, at the expense of another disadvantaged group. For instance, jobs which in the former course of events would have gone to white ethnic working-class males can be transferred to black working-class males. The problem can then be declared solved, without any substantial change in the power of those who have power, the structure of the economy, or anything else except the prospects of one group whose prospects were already somewhat limited. In the case of racial discrimination, this may in fact solve the problem, because the public image of the formerly discriminated group as somehow inferior to all others will disappear. That the people who paid for the solution were probably those least able to pay for it can be forgotten. Whether there should have been more jobs, or better educational opportunities for everyone, are questions that can go unanswered and in fact unasked. It is admittedly an inelegant solution -- a kludge -- which is itself unfair. But there is probably no other solution given the requirement of avoiding the taboos, which protect a kind of inherent "unfairness" in the situation as a whole. The case of affirmative action for women is a little different. On the one hand, women come from not just one kind of family but all kinds, so the relative status of families does not enter into their disadvantage. The disadvantage seems to arise rather from the possession of certain traits or "skills" which may be merely traditional or may stem from biology. Some of these are nurturance, cooperativeness, sensitivity to others, docility in the original sense (ability to be taught), affective (as contrasted to cognitive) intelligence. But these traits are evidently disadvantageous in a highly competitive society, at least in concert with each other and with a moral sensibility. Thus, the surface fix which may work for racial minorities may not work for women, because it demands acceptance of an existing structure of things which some of them may be unwilling, or unable, to accept. This brings me around the the question of whether affirmative action on behalf of women is a form of sexism. Some people say that any difference of thought or treatment of another based on the other's gender, other than in sexual and reproductive matters, is sexism -- in other words, women are men whose bodies are shaped somewhat differently, and to think or act otherwise is to be a sexist. In this case, affirmative action is non-sexist, since it assumes all that need be done is to force a sufficient number of members of arbitrary category W at the expense of arbitrary category M into various social slots, such that the statistics are changed to the point of appearing to balance.[1] Since the categorization is superficial (under this theory) a coerced decategorization will remove the possibility of distinction, and the categories will then merge. If, on the other hand, women really are different from men in some essential way (or have developed a side of human nature which is too valuable to be abandoned just because it is not sufficiently in accord with dominant values) then affirmative action may have an objectively sexist aspect, in that it seeks to incorporate a new category of persons into a system many of whose values are derived from sexist precursors. This is not to say that it should be abandoned under the circumstances, but that the circumstances themselves should be questioned. "The stock market is rising and the acid rain is coming down." -- [1] The truly pure among the 'equalists' will not be satisfied with this, because they believe that, statistics to the contrary notwithstanding, there is already no difference between the sexes, or the races, or whatever. For them, affirmative action is sexist and racist, because it recognizes such differences. Their refusal to accept the statistics and the evidence of daily life which oppose their arguments put them beyond the scope of this article, and vice versa. -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/22/89)
In article <8910200344.AA29498@uunet.uu.net> writes: >However, as one begins to think about the problem, there >are certain taboos. For instance, one can conclude that, >in a highly competitive society which also maintains rights >of inheritance and other strong familial connnections, it >is almost certain that inequality between categories of >families will persist for many generations. Let's assume that what you say is true (fat chance...) do you see the main stream of feminism as part of the solution? If not, how do you see the main stream of feminism? >much. Most specifically, the power of existing elites may >not be seriously disturbed. The poor Jews who came 60 years ago succeeded in the American society. The asians refugees who come today seem to have a similar success. But people who know all the political theory can ignore these facts... >Thus the affirmative action solution: if the figures are wrong >for one disadvantaged group, change the figures, more or less >by force, at the expense of another disadvantaged group. For We agree. >whose prospects were already somewhat limited. In the case >of racial discrimination, this may in fact solve the problem, Did you check the situation in black ghettos 20 years after AA was initiated? >itself unfair. But there is probably no other solution given >the requirement of avoiding the taboos, which protect a kind of >inherent "unfairness" in the situation as a whole. Please present your solution, and tell us all what it has to do with feminism. >Thus, the surface fix which may work for racial minorities may >not work for women, because it demands acceptance of an existing >structure of things which some of them may be unwilling, or >unable, to accept. Would mind to start writing *clearly*? How many is "some of them"? What can't women accept? >This brings me around the the question of whether affirmative >action on behalf of women is a form of sexism. Some people >say that any difference of thought or treatment of another >based on the other's gender, other than in sexual and >reproductive matters, is sexism -- in other words, women are >men whose bodies are shaped somewhat differently, and to think >or act otherwise is to be a sexist. In this case, affirmative >action is non-sexist, since it assumes all that need be done is \begin{sarcasm} Whites are blacks whose skin color is somewhat different. Therefore discrimination against blacks is not racist. \end{sarcasm} Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "People who can't address real issues in any coherent fashion resort to analogies...and usually incredibly *bad* ones..." --- Diane Holt
angie@iuvax.cs.indiana.EDU (angela allen) (10/25/89)
I'm not sure if this is going to the right person, but here goes. THIS IS NOT A FLAME!!! I loved the post (clear, concise, level-headed... a sinificant contribution to the field. --New York Times) This is a consciousness-raising effort to change the way ALMOST EVERYONE speaks about men and women (including me when I'm not paying attention :-) In soc.feminism [someone] write[s]: [I'm not sure which article is being referred to here... --clt] > in other words, women are >men whose bodies are shaped somewhat differently, and to think >or act otherwise is to be a sexist. *more stuff here* >If, on the other hand, women really are different from men in >some essential way Please notice that you are defining women in terms of men, retaining men as the focus, the norm, and the yardstick of all the rest of us. If this is what you meant, that is your business. If not, I suggest that next time you might say: In other words, women and men are merely somewhat differently shaped bodies... If, on the other hand, the genders really are different in some essential way... Thanks for your post, and thanks for your patience in listening to my raving about my pet peeve. --angie
avery@well.uucp (Avery Ray Colter) (10/28/89)
angie@iuvax.cs.indiana.EDU (angela allen) writes: >Please notice that you are defining women in terms of men, retaining >men as the focus, the norm, and the yardstick of all the rest of us. >If this is what you meant, that is your business. If not, I suggest >that next time you might say: >In other words, women and men are merely somewhat differently shaped >bodies... >If, on the other hand, the genders really are different in some >essential way... A thought to ponder........ Is "woman" a linguistic extension of "man"? Or is "man" a linguistic contraction of "woman"? Or, does it really matter in the end? Other than the size of the end that is <ducking>. -- Avery Ray Colter (415) 451-7786 | Now, class, repeat after me: {apple|ucbvax|pacbell}!well!avery | ICH LIEBE DIE BELEIBTEN LEIBEN, avery@well.sf.ca.us | UND HUPFENDE HUEFTE HABE ICH GERN!