From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:50:18 GMT

In article <C15qIC.GuD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>Rule sets will be of varying usefullness, but they
>>>>should just be guidelines for selection, not requirements. If they are
>>>>requirements, then they are not rule sets.
>>>
>>>If the rule sets are just guidelines, and are only of limited
>>>usefulness, then intuition does play a place. 
>
>>What's the difference? Or do you claim that intutition is 100% accurate?
>>As I recall, you had previously state that this was not the case. I am
>>asserting that the one professor you mentioned who does verbal evaluations
>>-knows- a usefull ruleset, whether it is known subconsiously or not is
>>not strictly relevant, except when it comes to describing the process
>>to others. 
>
>The point is that he believes rule sets are of limited usefulness. That
>is, that a person with little intuition for the selection process, cannot
>be helped much by any rule set. 

And I believe that the fact that it hasn't been done is not proof
that it cannot be done. Further, the fact that some people can do it 
well proves that such rule-sets are possible, otherwise they would get
random results.
 
>>Am I an anti-feminist? Since a feminist is someone who calls themself
>>a feminist, is an anti-feminist someone whom a feminist calls an
>>anti-feminist?
>
>Are you?

I do not consider myself an anti-feminist. Does that matter?
 
>>>Let's all respond to the individual opinions of individual posters,
>>>*except* when they claim to speak for a group.
>
>>If by that you mean that I am out of line restating opinions expressed
>>by feminists in alt.feminism, I disagree. If I think it is a valid
>>point or a counterpoint to the conversation, I will bring it up. Where
>>you get this silly assignment of responsibility is beyond me, but it
>>has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It was amusing though. :^)
>
>Please do not, in particular, attribute to *me* the opinions of
>others. (And I'm sure anyone else you correspond with would appreciate
>that courtesy too.)

I did not and have not. What is the problem here? Do the words point
and counterpoint not ring a bell? And as I said, the satirical assignment
of responsibility was amusing, but otherwise completely unconnected to
the thread. But since it looked like satire, I had some fun with it too.
Then again, since you edited all that out, you may not be referring to
the satire. What are you referring to?
 
>>That is a large part of the debate here Lenore, what exactly is feminism
>>accomplishing (not what does it claim as it's goals, and it has already
>>been pointed out that there is no clear-cut single set of feminist goals)
>
>I think that if you were a feminist in 1963 (as I was) you would
>not doubt that feminism has accomplished something. There do seem
>to be more options available for women now than then. 

I am not talking about then, but now. 
 
>I remember a little incident that brought this home to me. In spring
>1988, I had just been accepted at the graduate school I'm currently
>enrolled in; and I was talking to the Director of Graduate Studies of
>the department I would study in. I was asking him questions about the
>school; and I asked him if my boy friend would be allowed to check
>books out of the school library. (He said yes, members of the
>community *could* check books out of the U. of I. library.)
>
>A few days later I thought about this conversation. I realized that
>in 1963, I could not have thus admitted to an older person I knew
>in an official capacity that I was "living in sin" -- no matter how
>nice they were.

Interesting, you attribute this to feminism?
 
>This is just a trivial incident, but things *have* changed!

Not all changes have been improvements however.
  
>>But then, if the parents do not motivate their children to learn, then
>>the teachers stand little chance of success. And they are not the
>>problem to begin with.
>
>The teacher I refer to *has* succeeded. 

But millions have not. This is the real tragedy.
 
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com