From: uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!jk@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Reverence for Women
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 02:22:52 GMT



rberlin@Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) writes:

[In response to a claim that sex-role stereotyping leads to better
child care:]

>[T]here is still a great deal of debate over whether the "traditional"
>division of labor is really "best" for all children; where is the room
>for individual judgment about the needs of a *particular* child vs. the
>abilities of her/his *particular* parents?  In the second place, you
>are making two common but dreadfully wrong assumptions: (a) that having
>a womb inevitably makes a woman a mother; and (b) that having a female
>body automatically makes her better suited to caring for a child than
>her male-bodied spouse. 

Stereotyping doesn't mean absolute compulsion, as your language ("all
children", "where is the room", "inevitably", "automatically")
suggests.  It only means that some ways of acting are expected and
others seem to need an explanation.  As such, it is inevitable as well
as useful -- "people have stereotypes" means the same thing as "people
expect some things and think other things need explanations".  How else
could we deal with the world?

If it's accepted that we necessarily stereotype, the question becomes
whether there's something necessarily bad about varying our stereotypes
in accordance with sex.  The idea of doing so bothers many people, but
don't see why -- I've never known anyone who didn't.  (Some
participants in soc.feminism say they don't.)

>And finally, even if you assume that there must be an at-home parent
>for some particular portion of a child's life, it is unfair to all
>parties--mother, father and child--if the law mandates that the at-home
>parent must be female.

The mandates of the law are not at issue -- the question is whether it
affronts justice for people to expect the at-home parent to be female.

>All cultures do not have the same view of personal property that the
>European-influenced cultures do.

My guess is that a society of traditional hunters and gatherers (the
Eskimos or Hottentots in 1800, say) might have a very different view of
personal property from our own, but in a more extensive, more diverse,
more technically advanced and wealthier society in which the division
of labor and the market are important (China in 1800, say), the view of
personal property would tend to be more like ours.

>[T]he prevailing cultural view around here seems to be that there is a
>difference between regulating the behavior of an *institution* (or an
>individual representing an institution) and regulating the behavior of
>an *individual.* 

I think the distinction people draw is between activities thought to be
public and those thought to be private.  For example, all moneymaking
activities are thought to be public, even if engaged in by individuals
rather than institutions.  (A one-man barbershop would be subject to
some antidiscrimination laws.)  This distinction is somewhat circular,
since whatever activities people decide are suitable for public
regulation are made part of the public realm by the same decision.  The
feminist slogan that the personal is the political reflects a sense (at
least) that the distinction may be arbitrary.

>And the fundamental reason given for laws against discrimination is to
>ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to live decently and in
>dignity.   If the social infrastructure were such that prostitution
>were a legal, safe, decent and respected profession, you might very
>well see laws regulating discrimination in this area . . .

That fundamental reason doesn't explain why laws regulating
discrimination by prostitutes in their choice of customers seem more
acceptable than laws regulating discrimination by people in their
choice of marriage partners.  After all, marriage is more closely
connected than access to prostitutes to having a decent and dignified
position in society.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)


---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.