From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist? was (Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:35:13 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec23163320@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.195343.28865@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <BzoCHF.GC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>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.
>
>Umm...do you understand what an *example* is?  

No, do you understand what stereotyping is? Is stereotyping nothing but
an example?

>                                                  In an example, you lay
>out the asusmptions.  She could just as easily have reversed the example
>backgrounds, but that would not be as likely to be true.

I believe she was laying out ad-hoc assumptions to be used as criteria
for program eligilability. If one is willing to prepare a questionaire
and ask a few questions in an interview, there is zero need for -any-
assumptions. 
 
>>> 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?
>
>No, because of their actual backgrounds.  Once you are dealing with real
>people, you can go by the reality.

Then who cares what ones background is? It makes no difference does it.
 
>>I do not see how
>>you distinguish between an -individual- from a disadvantaged background,
>>and a class upon which is labeled as disadvantaged.
>
>Again, this is not that difficult once you are dealing with individuals.

Lenores argument is -class- based, not individual based. 
 
>>>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?
>
>Yes, actually.  If nothing else, the funding is probably re-evaluated
>every year or so.

But being politically correct, this program would seem to stand a much
higher chance of renewal that non-sexist programs. Then again, at Mills
College, I guess -all- programs must necessarily be sexist.
 
>>>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? 
>
>As Lenore said quite clearly, the support should be for the people who
>have shown the potential to do well.

Her focus is upon the backgrounds, and the assumptions that go with them.
 
>>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) 
>
>Actually, it's mostly the anti-feminists who bring up "egalitarianism"
>in this forum.  I, personally, am very much in favor of everyone being
>treated equally well by society.  However, if they are not treated
>equally well in one area, then I think it is reasonable to try to make
>up for that lack elsewhere.  

How does this work? You get twice the discrimination free of charge, and
nothing is even potentially solved. And there is no valid metric for
even determining what is happening, much less if the percieved problem has
been fixed.

>                                 As a simple example, if a woman is not
>well-grounded in math when she is in grade school, a special program in
>college to help her out is quite reasonable.  My preference, though, is
>to have this sort of thing available to everyone who needs it.  If funds
>are limited, as they usually are, it should go to the people who both
>need it most and will profit most from it.  (Yes, this is hard to
>determine, but you can at least *try*.)

Well, from a recent post by Lenore, this is not her game plan. She has
admitted to being elitist, and not eglatarian. And I see no sign that
her focus is upon the individual.
 
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism