jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (09/08/89)
My high school daughter has been given a history project, choose one
of the following statements to prove:
1. There is still significant institutional discrimination
against minorities in America.
2. Within the American institutional system, there is no discrimination.
3. There is still significant institutional discrimination against
women in America.
4. Women and minorities now have an advantage in America.
The teacher specified that individual bigotry was not to be considered
institutional discrimination. (If this was a college thesis, one could
take the time to prove that individual bigotry is part of the institution,
but it has taken me years to get to the point where I *might* be able to
articulate this to the satisfaction of a *sympathetic* white male.)
My daughter chose #3, and I bought her _FEMINISM__UNMODIFIED_ by
Catherine MacKinnon. However, after reading the book, I have decided to
use some of her footnotes as sources, but I would rather my daughter did
not read the book before she has had a long-term relationship with a man.
(MacKinnon has a valuable viewpoint, but telling a teenage girl that
sex and battery are the same thing may not help her form a healthy relationship)
My question: are there particularly good sources on this that offer the
sort of statistics that would convince establishment types and young boys
who assume everything is equal except AA? (Alternative ideology, such as
defining equality of opportunity as including women's concerns such as child
care, while important to explain to my daughter, rest on more groundwork than
she is likely to be able to stuff into a report.)
Of course, she will be using the usual library sources and periodicals
references, but does anyone know of a particularly good study or publication?geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (09/08/89)
In article <57397@aerospace.AERO.ORG> twinsun!uunet!orc.olivetti.com!jan (Jan Parcel) writes: > >My high school daughter has been given a history project, choose one >of the following statements to prove: > > 1. There is still significant institutional discrimination > against minorities in America. > > 2. Within the American institutional system, there is no discrimination. > > 3. There is still significant institutional discrimination against > women in America. > > 4. Women and minorities now have an advantage in America. > >The teacher specified that individual bigotry was not to be considered >institutional discrimination. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a sad commentary on the mind-set of some high school teachers. Cultural phenomena such as how minorities and women are treated whether by individuals or institutions (what is an institution if not a collection of individuals anyhow?) can't be captured by a few simplistic questions. Well, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she only was interested in the public attitudes about such). It really is complex, though. For example, at the entry level of most institutional hiring, it is certainly a plus to be a woman or even more a minority (women + minority = a double hit) and you certainly would have a leg up on another candidate with equal qualifications in most places. But at the level of department chairman, it is a different story entirely. Probably this is because at the entry level, when no one knows you from Adam (Eve?) bureaucratic hiring procedures bias in favor of affirmative action, whereas the upper levels are filled by the hierarchy largely from their personal friends, and women and minorities have a social disadvantage when it comes to "hobnobbing with the brass" due to individual discrimination.
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (09/09/89)
In article <57397@aerospace.AERO.ORG> twinsun!uunet!orc.olivetti.com!jan (Jan Parcel) writes: > [my daughter will be writing a paper on ] > > 3. There is still significant institutional discrimination against > women in America. > >My question: are there particularly good sources on this that offer the >sort of statistics that would convince establishment types and young boys >who assume everything is equal except AA? (Alternative ideology, such as >defining equality of opportunity as including women's concerns such as child >care, while important to explain to my daughter, rest on more groundwork than >she is likely to be able to stuff into a report.) Try "Beyond Power" by Marilyn French. The book's length and scope might make it hard to get through, but it has a balanced tone throughout. That is, it is careful to document things and differentiate between various feminist analyses and solutions. It has a slightly more global perspective than many other books I've seen. This would also be a good time for her to write to NOW, and get source materials. Of course, such a request would be better received if it were accompanied with your daughter's application for membership. Perhaps she could write to Pat Schroeder, and ask for details on the plans for contraceptive research Schroeder put forth recently. She might also have submitted a bill on comparative worth. On a related note, your daughter could go through LA papers, find whichever organizations were instrumental in getting comparative worth legislation passed there. I'm sure they have reams of literature lying around. (Seattle, too?) If you have hip legislators in your district, write them, too. Perhaps your daughter could simply watch TV for a few weeks with a logbook, identifying in shows and advertisements what roles each gender plays: who makes what types of decisions, who speaks more, who appears more, who is active or passive, who's wearing the clothes and who's not, and what point-of-view does the camera take. Apart from the paper, this type of concentrated analysis might make her much sophisticated in terms of the social role that the television medium plays. Finally, there's also the possibility that your daughter could document any existing discrimination in a local institution, such as in her school system (who gets promoted? who's doing the supervising? who has the education?), or local medical/legal institutions (Are there battered women's shelters nearby? Are they funded?). Getting and analyzing the information, contradictory as it will be, would be quite an educational experience, I would imagine. Or hey, maybe there will be no local discrimination at all, and this experience will turn your daughter into a young Phillis Schlafly. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
jan@orc.olivetti.com (09/13/89)
In article <6491@columbia.edu> travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >Perhaps your daughter could simply watch TV for a few weeks with a >logbook, identifying in shows and advertisements what roles each >gender plays: (....)who >appears more, who is active or passive, who's wearing the clothes and >who's not, She tapes a soap rather than watching evening or late-night TV, so the *guys* are always stripping... ;-) (As a drama person, she *does* notice what kinds of roles are available for men vs. women, sometimes she notices sexism (in both directions) I would have overlooked. (For instance, she thinks it's silly to portray fathers as incompetent caregivers). I am saving all replies for her, there's good stuff there.)
em@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (edward.man) (09/28/89)
In article <1989Sep8.154533.2108@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >In article <57397@aerospace.AERO.ORG> twinsun!uunet!orc.olivetti.com!jan (Jan Parcel) writes: >>My high school daughter has been given a history project, choose one >>of the following statements to prove: >> ... ... ... >> >> 4. Women and minorities now have an advantage in America. >> >>The teacher specified that individual bigotry was not to be considered >>institutional discrimination. > > ... ... ... ... >For example, at the entry level of most institutional hiring, it is certainly >a plus to be a woman or even more a minority (women + minority = a double >hit) and you certainly would have a leg up on another candidate >with equal qualifications in most places. But at the level of >department chairman, it is a different story entirely. Probably >this is because at the entry level, when no one knows you from Adam >(Eve?) bureaucratic hiring procedures bias in favor of affirmative >action, whereas the upper levels are filled by the hierarchy largely >from their personal friends, and women and minorities have a social >disadvantage when it comes to "hobnobbing with the brass" due to >individual discrimination. I both agree and disagree with Gordon that minority benefits in entry level hiring depending on the sort of positions one is talking about. Various studies have shown that asian students are doing much better in sciences than their non-Asian counterparts around the world and in the US of A. So if all we know about an individual at an entry level position is by his academic record, is it fair to say that an Asian has the edge for this position because of his academic performance? I certainly think so. However, I have seen AA committees in organizations setting quotas for hiring. For example, an organization's current make up is 15% Asians, and they want to ensure that the Asian percentage does not slip, so the AA committee ensures future hiring is 15% Asian. But, if we are talking about major R&D organizations which hire only the best, and, by academic records, the Asians may constitute more than 15% of the best. Hence, the quota system hurts the Asians. Also, some organizations have manditory AA participation requirements. I think this requirement is stupid because how then can we find out who discriminates and who don't?! AA has become a means for people to get promoted (some organizations value AA partition much when considering promotions). I think the concept of AA is fine, but its implementation is disastrous. I believe AA is for everyone, not just minorities. We should make sure that no one (whether you are black, yellow, pink, white, green, purple, or orange) should be discrminated against. Discrimination is bad, and so is reverse discrimination. I say, when hiring, ignore the race, sex, religion, etc. and consider only one's qualification because the only thing that matters is can one do the job. -------------------------------------------------------------------- | The above opinion is mine, and mine only; and it's not for sale. | | And don't you dare steal it. | --------------------------------------------------------------------