From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Are special programs sexist, was (Re: Muffy and Rini, where are you?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:14:22 GMT

In article <BzqDuJ.8Ar@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
******* by Lenore Levine********
>>>>>>>For these reasons, I am in favor of institutions like Mills College's
>>>>>>>summer research program in mathematics, for talented female
>>>>>>>undergraduates. I just wish more such programs were available, and
>>>>>>>available to other individuals of nonstandard backgrounds.
******* by Lenore Levine********
[snip snip]
 
>>>Of course, any individual who shows talent and desire to do research
>>>mathematics should be encouraged and supported. I do think it is
>>>particularly important to support individuals whose background shows
>>>a history of overcoming obstacles. For example, it would be much
>>>harder for an individual coming from the rural poverty culture
>>>overromanticized in the Ma and Pa Kettle movies, to become a research
>>>mathematician, than an individual whose father is a professor at
>>>Stanford. Think of all the obstacles the first person would have to
>>>face: in not getting a very good high school education, in assumptions
>>>about them because of their background, 
>
>>You yourself are making assumptions about their backgrounds. I do not think
>>that it follows that someone from "the rural poverty culture" must be
>>disadvantaged or that one "whose father is a professor at Stanford" is
>>necessarily at some advantage as far as mathematics goes. This may be
>>the case, and it may not.
>
>It is likely to be the case.

I wonder, it it not just as likely that anyone from such a "rural poverty
culture" who seeks a position in research mathametics, and is qualified,
either did -not- have these disadvantages, or has necessarily overcome them
already? As for the person who's father is a professor at Stanford, not all
childen follow the profession or desires of their parents, some show no
interest whatsoever. Do you have any idea how many do or do not?

But my point is that you are putting people into classes, then assigning
attributes to those classes, then acting as if those assumptions were
true. Sounds kinda like stereotyping to me, and it is completely, absolutely,
totally unecessary. The actual situation could more realistically be
determined by questions on the application, and a short interview.
 
>>>                                           in having to work their way
>>>through college, etc. I think, for these reasons, that it would be
>>>appropriate to throw some extra support the way of the first person.
>
>>Because of assumptions made about their backgrounds? I do not see how
>>you distinguish between an -individual- from a disadvantaged background,
>>and a class upon which is labeled as disadvantaged. It looks to me like
>>only class distinctions are made and acted upon, and anyone suffering 
>>the same disadvantage from the wrong class is outta luck. 
>
>It is not possible to tell precisely what obstacles people have faced. 

It is not a way to tell what obstacles people have faced at all. Why is it
that stereotyping is an abomination in some cases, but required in others?
And by the same socially conscious (tm) groups.

>         There will always be some unfairness. But it is certainly
>possible to obtain some rough approximation of the truth.

I agree, but I disagree that this will be the result of class assignment
and stereotyping. Why not just ask directly?
  
>>>Since women do, in our culture (for the most part), face some extra 
>>>obstacles, I do think the Mills College program is ethical and appropriate. 
>>>You are right that it may not be so at some future time. 
>
>>Do you really think that these programs will ever go away? Or that they
>>are not a flashing neon banner proclaiming that it is OK to discriminate
>>-for- women, in fact, almost a requirement. And of course it is completely 
>>morally bankrupt to  discriminate -for- men <shudder>. (they have -all- 
>>the advantages anyway, right?) Note also that you are making assumptions 
>>about these womens backgrounds. 
>
>I am *not* making assumptions about the women. I said, "For the most part!"

By the stereotypes discussed in other threads, these women should have been
so brainwashed (c) that they would not even consider doing mathematics, after 
all, "math is hard"! I suspect that for the women in these programs, you are
making assumptions.
 
>Are you against spaying domestic cats, because at some future time they
>may be an endangered species?

A better analog might be making them an endangered species, and I see no
reason for that either.
 
>It is a rare social policy that will *always* be useful, forever. 

I thought we were discussing whether current policies are reasonable, now.

>And one of the reasons I am writing on the net, one of the keys to my
>personal philosophy of social justice, is the idea that situations
>change, that a policy which may have been useful in the past may not be
>useful in the present.

Your view of social justice seems no less sexist than the current situation.
A bit ago, I stated that "if sexism is the problem, then it cannot also
be the solution", and those who responded agreed. It seems that, by your
post, you do not agree. Sexism and racism are fine if they help those from
"disadvantaged backgrounds".
 
>I hope that all the social institutions I advocate now, all the ones
>that work now, will go away when they are no longer useful or
>appropriate. I don't see how we can have any sort of social justice
>without feedback!

I had thought that I was giving feedback. As for social institutions,
those which serve SIG's are bad, unless the SIG's are women or minorities.
Go figure.
 
>(This is something I feel *very* strongly about.)

I am not ambivalant about the situation. I just feel that the solution should
-solve- the problem, not mirror it.
 
>>>I only wish that there was a *similar* program, available for *all*
>>>individuals whose personal history shows that they have overcome
>>>obstacles. (It is certainly true, that Joe Kettle may have faced
>>>more obstacles than Wendy Rockefeller...)
>
>>Why is it that we do not support lame olympic runners? They are at a
>>disadvantage, should they not be supported? 
>
>Of course not. But lame mathematics professors should; that is one of 
>the reasons there is an elevator in the University of Illinois' mathematics
>building. 

My point being that -ability- is a better indicator then class segregation.
 
>>Heck, come to think of it, I come from a poor rural background, why is
>>it that this disadvantage has never gained me access to special programs?
>
>You can make a good case that it should have. As a matter of fact, I
>suspect it did to a certain extent; at least, I suspect you obtained a
>student loan.

No loans, just school, work, and more work.
 
>>Perhaps almost -everyone- is at a disadvantage in some way, and there
>>are not resources enough to cover basic expenses in our spendthrift
>>government, much less to give every SIG special funding. I really think
>>the only reason why these programs might be needed is because of excess
>>taxation on every conceivable thing. And I do not recall any constitutional 
>>provisions for aid to the "disadvantaged" or amendments in the BOR. Rather
>>than taking from everyone and giving to some selected few, we need to
>>take less from everyone and allow for personal choice (and ability) to
>>be the deciding factors. This program makes personal choice (or do they
>>canvass?) and sex the deciding factors. What I see again and again is
>>body count determinations of where favoritism is required and allowed. 
>
>>It is also interesting that, arguing -for- eglatarianism, in a forum
>>where it has been claimed that eglatanarism is a goal, I hear resoponses 
>>like, "maybe at some future time" (this will be desirable)... I had heard
>>that feminists wanted eglatanarism NOW. (half a pun) 
>
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>I think you are making a reasonable assumption, but one that is
>incorrect. Many of the feminists writing on this net, would call
>themselves "egalitarians." I would not.

I recall that the definition rini gave for a feminist was essentially 
eglatarian, and Muffy just posted that "feminists came along and said that
everyone should be free to follow their own interests", not just women.
(a point which I disagreed with, but still a claim for eglatarianism)

That is, the way feminism has been defined here has essentially (if not
directly) been eglitarian.
 
>I am not an egalitarian for two reasons:
>
>1) First of all, I see myself as being, all my life, a fighter for 
>social justice and for good. I am not always sure what these concepts
>imply; but I would not be presumptuous enough to sum them up in one
>single word.

So you imply that "social justice" is not eglitarian? And that eglatarian
goals are not "good"? Then you would probably sell my franchise for
your personal advancement and call that "social justice". I have a problem
with that.
 
>2) I think the importance of *individual* human differences has
>been strongly underrated. And if it is cruel to push a talentless person
>to attempt skills not appropriate for them, it is equally cruel to
>not develop the skills of a talented person. For this reason, I am
>all in favor of programs which attempt to identify talented people of
>nonstandard backgrounds, and train them. The reason for such programs is
>not just to help the individuals, but to help the society that then
>benefits from such talent.

Why the -necessity- for "nonstandard backgrounds"?  Must those guilty of
the crime of coming from what you define as coming from a standard background
give up their carreer plans? It seems that you find against them, and they
have no place in your political reality. 
 
>I am aware that this is not the answer a typical feminist poster would
>give you. I would really like to hear the response of others -- e.g.,
>Muffy and Rini -- to your questions.

I changed the subject line back, they may respond if they wish, but I do
not see any requirement. And I would like to continue this thread.
 
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom


Newsgroups: alt.feminism