From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:13:02 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>	The best thing to gain respect is respectable--that is,
>	strong or well thought out--arguments.

>	OTOH, I find your arguments a refreshing break from the
>	shrill nonsense that I am getting elsewhere on this same 
>	thread.  I'm surprised someoneisn't screaming baby killer.

>	:-)

Thank you. However, let me note that strong language and unsubtle
arguments tend to elicit the same. 

>	Some people just happen to have more sympathy, I am not
>	one of them.  I have made it my task to be honest with
>	myself--if I do nothing else--and I have seen situations
>	that I would like to pin on others ["you didn't push me
>	hard enough!"  "You didn't encourage me"] but refused to
>	do so.  It takes a little practice, but I've found it to
>	be quite effective.  I have yet to blame society for
>	anything.

But there is much that society *should* be blamed for. 

>	[good teacher bad learning, bad teacher good learning deleted]

>>Here at this university, there are teachers who manage to get on the
>>wavelength of originally unmotivated students *without* giving them a
>>free ride. 

>	there are a few here, too--but most of them are still
>	(what I consider) a little too easy to influence.

Not here -- believe me!

>>I know I was more on the wavelength of my spring 1992 class than I was
>>on that of the fall 1992 class. And my spring students *did* do better.
>>They were more willing to seek help.

>	True enough for math--but try to apply that to something
>	like what I take, like languages.  If students do not keep
>	up and do not practice,they will require hours and hours
>	of special help to catch up, if that's at all possible.

If you think this is *not* true about mathematics, you are quite
mistaken.

>>Entrenched? It's amazing how many institutions and values that seemed
>>entrenched, in 1992, will have disappeared by 2022.

>	Wishful thinking.

If you remember this exchange in 2022, you're going to be very 
embarassed. 

>  I have seen very good arguments that
>	show economics as a prime mover behind the civil rights 
>	movement and not civil disobedience and protest.  These
>	types of arguments are a lot more concrete than the nebulous
>	arguments that are based on guilt, giving in and whatnot,
>	and I have seen similar ones on advances in womens rights.
>	The only real concrete achievement of the people who claim
>	to be the workers of equality are the fanatical rape laws
>	(mono-sex definitions of rape, reducing the defendants right
>	to a fair trial..) and the abortion laws.  While these may or
>	not be noble things, it is very hard to show that these 
>	organizations achieved anything but a lot of empty litigation
>	and handwaving.  The real drive behind getting women into 
>	the workforce (which I consider the biggest single 
>	factor in social equality) was economics.  

Note I did *not* say *why* institutions change. This is the subject for
another discussion, and one that I am not particularly into
undertaking. I am just glad some of them have (e.g., the abortion
laws).  

>	In HS, I didn't see much of anything--most of my teachers
>	were between 24 and 36, and many were still students.  That
>	was a special case--from what I've heard, normal HS is 
>	pretty much even bigotry on both sides of the table, with
>	some male teachers going over the ropes in a sad attempt
>	to impress the girls and build their egos (if not fill their
>	beds).

There was a well-written article in a recent Ms, by a high-school age
woman, describing teachers who flirted with her, much against her
wishes. In the article, she said that though some high-school women
welcomed such attentions, for the free ride it gave them, many others
regarded them as loathsome.

And, by the way, I suspect that such teachers would discriminate even
more against young women who didn't meet their standards of
attractiveness, than males.

(Note I am not that enthused about Ms. in general. But I really liked
that article.)

>	College is different.  The teachers (outside ofthe voodoo
>	departments) are generally there because they enjoy what they do and
>	want to continue to learn and research and so on.  They
>	have preferences for individuals which do not seem based
>	on gender at all. (Race, looks, etc., though...) 

Preferences based on race and looks are just as unconscionable as those
based on gender. 

Also note that much more looks prejudice is directed at women; and that,
in general, women encounter much more inappropriate discrimination based
on looks then men. (Although the female T.A. drooling at the football
player is not an unknown spectacle -- and just as disgusting!)

>	In WMST, SOCY, AMST--I saw plenty of anti-male *sexism*--
>	it can be labelled nothing else. 

This statement doesn't sound unreasonable. You may even convince many
feminists that it's true. If you want to present convincing evidence for
this statement, let me recommend the following strategies:

1) Give as much specific detail, and as little opinion, as you can. Let
the facts speak for themselves.

2) Give extreme and obvious examples. 

>	I have never seen sexism on the job...

I sure have. Though, I must admit, it varies tremendously from
institution to institution.

Lenore Levine