mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/05/89)
>Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the status quo, and if >that status quo discriminates against women, than non-advocacy means >discriminating against women. You are omitting the key portion of the phrase; I said "advocacy *for*women*", not just any old advocacy. It's the intent here that is the problem, not the need for action. Action which is in the interests of women isn't necessarily in the interests of gender equality. Also, >Treating unequals equally preserves the initial inequality. If gender >inequality is an unacceptable state, then gender-blindness or non-advocacy >CANNOT be a legitimate course of action. I don't accept this characterization, because, in general, there is more difference within a subpopulations than there is between subpopulations (on social issues, that is). If you are talking about actions which have effects on specific individuals, then I suggest that the comparisons be between specific individuals. Even as a relatively well-off male, there are many many females who are better off than I. If you are going to take this "treating unequals unequally", then these women must yield advantage to me, even as I would yield advantage to those less fortunate than I. I see no reason to yield to a more priveleged woman merely on the basis of her gender. "Gender blindness" means acting on real inequalities. Statistical means and medians are not real. Charley Wingate
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (10/05/89)
"I see no reason to yield to a more privileged woman merely based on her gender...as I would yield to someone less fortunate than I..." In other words people have rights in inverse proportion to how "fortunate" (wealthy? talented?) they are? This seems to stem from the ideology of "egalitarianism", i.e, the hating of the good for being the good.
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (10/05/89)
In article <8910041915.AA05706@mimsy.UMD.EDU> mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) writes: >>Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the status quo, and if >>that status quo discriminates against women, than non-advocacy means >>discriminating against women. > >You are omitting the key portion of the phrase; I said "advocacy >*for*women*", not just any old advocacy. It's the intent here that is >the problem, not the need for action. Action which is in the >interests of women isn't necessarily in the interests of gender >equality. By equating "non-advocacy" (in this case) with "gender blindness", I think I made it quite clear that I was referring to "advocacy for women". In any case, I said so explicitly later in my article. I did not say that actions in the interests of women are *necessarily* in the interests of gender equality, so that's a bit of a red herring. What I said was that, given an existing situation in which discrimination against women and gender inequality exist as a social facts, gender-blindness can only lead to perpetration of that situation. Therefore, the interests of gender equality may very well require that feminists advocate for women. How else is existing inequality to be undone or overcome? Do you have any suggestions? >If you are talking about >actions which have effects on specific individuals, then I suggest >that the comparisons be between specific individuals. Gender is a social fact which appears in individuals, but is in no sense local to individuals. Likewise, gender-based discrimination and gender inequalities are facts about groups, not about individuals, even if it's individuals who suffer the consequences. Most of what can be said about "gender" and gender inequality is independent of any given individual. Is it surprising that working against gender inequality is just as social as the inequality itself? >"Gender blindness" means acting on real inequalities. Statistical >means and medians are not real. The "reality" of gender (whether it's social or biological) transcends any single individual. Insofar as statistics can be used to measure gender inequality, it is clearly more "real" than any single, isolated case.
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/06/89)
Keith Weiner interprets me as saying >In other words people have rights in inverse proportion to how "fortunate" >(wealthy? talented?) they are? Well, no. I've become more and more suspicious of talk of "rights" because, it seems to me, they have become more a tool of political rhetoric and less descriptive. SO you shall have to forgive me if I do not speak of rights here. This discussion started out from my observations on the polarization exhibited in the child custody discussion, but it has in general drifted over to a more general discussion of what feminism is supposed to do for us. One way to put it is that we are deciding what kind of advantages people are allowed to have over one another. For instance, there is a lot of acceptance of education as a factor, and almost none of religion as a factor. And context is also important; education is important in the jobplace and irrelevant in the grocery line. Now, we seem to be assenting to the notion that gender should not, by and large, be a factor. However, some of us seem to be asserting existing inequity as a deciding factor. Insofar as this principle is to be observed, I insist on real inequities rather than statistical inequities. I'm sorry if I left the impression that I personally support such action. I can't say whether I do or not. However, it is manifestly the intent of some policies to reduce inequity, and it is these policies which my comment was directed to. Charley Wingate
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (10/16/89)
[Note: I have deleted most of the included text that Keith let in. Please, folks, include only the minimum quoted text you need in order to point out what you're talking about. -MHN] Charlie Wingate writes: >>In other words people have rights in inverse proportion to how "fortunate" >>(wealthy? talented?) they are? >Well, no. > >I've become more and more suspicious of talk of "rights" because, it seems >to me, they have become more a tool of political rhetoric and less >descriptive. SO you shall have to forgive me if I do not speak of rights >here. > hmm... In other words, Charlie, rights not only dont exist, they cant even be defined in a non-"political-rhetoric" way? Then, you speak of "advatages people are allowed..." This makes no distinction between a mob boss who became rich by crime, and a businessman who became rich by selling a better product at lower prices... and "deciding" means "forcing". This is known as a tryanny of the majority. You would do well by denying individual rights. "some policies reduce inequality"... at the expense of (individual rights?) And how can one reduce a collective problem. One subset of the collective may "benefit" and one may not. Who is to say which is "right"? The majority... "An elective despotism is NOT what we fought this war for!" - T Jefferson
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/20/89)
[This is moving too far out of the charter of the group. I've set the followup line to talk.politics.misc because I think that's the most appropriate place to discuss what the meaning of political rights is. - MHN] >hmm... In other words, Charlie, rights not only dont exist, they can't even be >defined in a non-"political-rhetoric" way? Well, this is starting to move outside the purview of this group, but ... Sorry, Keith, but these are your words. People assert rights all the time, but asserting them doesn't bring them into existence. Most references to "rights" in this era are really moral statements, statements which can be couched in other terms. I didn't say that rights "dont exist". I did say that I was suspicious of claims for them, as anyone should be. >Then, you speak of "advatages people are allowed..." This makes no distinction >between a mob boss who became rich by crime, and a businessman who became >rich by selling a better product at lower prices... Sure it does. We would prefer to take away the advantages of the mobster; we *might* think of trying to limit those of the tycoon. ("We" here is naturally loaded as all hell-- it is *very* important who gets to be in the "we", and who thus gets to set the agenda. One problem at a time.) If individual rights are utterly paramount (i.e., that people can do whatever they want to), then any kind of discrimination is permissible. I don't think individual rights are *utterly* paramount; people do not live in a vacuum, and they can be held responsible for the effects of their actions. By the same token, I don't believe that problems should only be addressed in terms of group conditions, desires, and the like, without consideration for the often considerable differences between the members of the group. -- C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure."