From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:47:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.215308.2987@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
[unseemly agreements deleted ;^)] 
 
>[on 50/50 representation....]
>
>>OK, I will retract the 'inherently sexist' claim. But the assumption that 
>>there should be 50/50 ratios is not supported. I am not aware of any evidence 
>>which would support this contention. Do you have any?
>
>The 50/50 is just an assumption with just about as much support as
>any other assumption you want to make.  

This is not totally true, there -are- well documented differences, and 
unless you postulate that they have no effects whatsoever, they must have
some effect. I will not even attempt to guess how they might effect things,
but overall, I would expect some clustering to result.

But if it were true that there is no data upon which to base an assumption,
why make any assumption? It would seem to be more reasonable to make no
assumptions.

>                                             It doesn't strike me as a 
>particularly harmful assumption to start with, so I don't sweat over it.

I question its validity, not if it is harmful. And consider, are not
double-standards based upon invalid assumptions? At least by the disputed
definition posted earlier.
 
>>While the 50/50 split may not be based upon sexist assumptions, it will
>>be used to enforce sexist hiring/firing/promotion practices, that is, those
>>based upon nothing more than a male/female body count. It has already
>>been used for this purpose.
>
>Yes, but this, IMO, is a separate issue.  IMO, a slanted body count is
>a symptom...  treating the symptom seems misguided.

Especially since there may be no sexism to begin with.
 
>>>>Counting the number of males and the number of females is not a measure
>>>>of sexism. 
>>>
>>>Why not?  Can you show me a case where it clearly is not?
>>
>>One more time, since you deleted ALL the previous explanation.
>>Perhaps I should do as you have done, tell you to go back and re-read
>>the post where it was explained. Then you would have some idea of how
>>well this sort of explanation works.
>>
>>1) It may be true that (SEXISM --> a non 50/50 split) - (sexism implies a
>>   non 50/50 split)
>>
>>2) It is not true that (a non 50/50 split --> SEXISM) - (a non 50/50 split
>>   implies sexism)
>>
>>You are not MEASURING SEXISM by this metric. And without looking into the
>>situation (as needs to be done anyway), you have no way of knowing what,
>>if anything, it means.
>
>Well, I think if you talk to any social scientists, you'll find that no
>tool can measure any social phenomenon perfectly.  They use a number of
>different tools.  Since we know that sexism is correlated with slanted
>sex ratios, the sex ratios themselves are a handy and quick way of 
>gathering information.  

If they are used only as 'indicators', and not as sufficient evidence,
I would agree. But they are not, many groups see no father than the body
counts, and they -do- claim sexism on no more evidence. There is a local
talk show (who's name I have not yet caught, I select programs by channel
flipping) where I have heard the body counts of congress/major corporations/
local companies, and their usage is quite clear.
 
>Lot's of sciences are like this.  Karposi's sarcoma (I'm sure I've 
>mangled the name) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition
>for the diagnosis of AIDS, but it's surely a helpful indicator.

In neither case do they make a diagnosis by symptoms alone. Other tests
are used, and in the case of AIDS, there is an antibody test, and recently
I hear a test for the retro-virus.
 
>>Alright, show me that a 50/50 split says something about the absence of 
>>sexism. 
>>It is not clear that this follows. I cannot off the top of my head come
>>up with a situation to fit this bill. All sporting events of this type
>>are fixed by quota. 
>
>Yeah, it's hard to come up with real-life examples, simply because I 
>don't know where to look for the absence of sexism!!
>
>I look forward to the day, however, when [more or less] half of the 
>orchestra is male and half female, when [more or less] half of the fine
>chefs are male and half female, when a secretary is as likely to 
>be male or female.... etc.
>
>>>In the absence of sexism, I have no reason to believe that higher
>>>education, voting, driving, business ownership, child-custody, housework,
>>>grocery shopping, tax filing, airplane flying, drug use, and a 
>>>bizillion other things would not tend to be something in the
>>>neighborhood of 50/50....
> 
>>And you have no reason to belive that a 50/50 split would result either.
>
>Sure I do.  There is no good evidence that women are inherently dumber, 
>can't drive as well, can't run finances as well, are better parents, clean
>toilets better, know how to shop better, are worse pilots etc etc etc.
>This despite the fact that people have been *looking* for this evidence
>for hundreds of years!  

But there is solid evidence of developmental and perceptual differences. 
Also there are physical differences in the brain. If you see things 
differently, then you will probably choose a different path in life. 
This is not right or wrong, nor is it sexist.
 
>>Can you provide some evidence to support this? I am not saying that it
>>would not happen so much as we have no reason to have -any- expectations
>>in this regard.
>
>Well, if the lack of evidence of snuff films is enough to emphatically
>reject their existence, I think the lack of evidence here works similarly.
 
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But there is a difference between
lack of evidence because no one has looked, and lack of evidence after
many searches by different parties. While we cannot remove social training 
and expectations, we can examine men and women. And men and women are
different by all measurable paramenters. (again note, I did not make any
value judgements, I just ask why one should expect identical choices
across the board despite differences in all categories)
 
>>>What I argued was this:  Women and men are held up to different ideals.
>>>(To crudely sum it up, women are beauty/sex objects, and men are wallets.)
>>>That is sexism for ya.  Different social expectations for different sexes,
>>>right?
>>
>>Again, we have proof by stereotype. The problem with the dumb blonde
>>stereotype is that it is usually wrong. Are you willing to claim that
>>this is just -the way things are-? 
>
>Right, stereotypes are mostly wrong.  That's the whole problem.
>
>>BTW, if women -do- objectify men as wallet-objects in the manner you
>>claim men objectify women, and they right or wrong? Or just oppressed?
>
>IMO, it's not very nice.
>
>>>Now, if it were the case that *both* men and women were expected to be
>>>beauty/sex objects... (in which case, we would probably see comparable
>>>numbers of men and women in nudey calendars).... where's the sexism?
>>
>>It's in your starting assumptions. That you change them does not change
>>the reasons why men and women buy calendars. 
>
>How/when/where did I change them?  
 
As things are now, the claim has been made that bikini calendars are
(wrong, a problem, sexist, <other>) because, it seems there are not an
equal number of Chippendale's (or equivalant) calendars, presumably this 
is a result of sexism.

<wave of magic wand>, suddenly, such calandars exist in equal numbers
(exactly equal, after all, it is magic). Now it is assumed that there
is no sexism.

In the first case, the -assumed- cause is sexism, by men. In the second
case, it is assumed that there is no sexism, again by men. The second
case is hypothetical as well. The argument is basically -If there were
no sexism, men and women would purchase equal amounts of semi-nude
calendars-. Except that it has been turned around and the assumption of
sexism is used as a conclusion.
 
>[the non-sexist world....]
>
>>>It would be a world where people weren't expected to things (or not do
>>>things) because of their sex.  I would certainly expect a more equal
>>>representation in most things.  
>>
>>Would you expect -equal- representation though? What does "more equal" mean?
>>40/60? 55/45? 38/62?  Where would you draw the line at which you would make
>>accusations of sexism blindly?
>
>I would never make accusations of sexism blindly.

Good for you. 
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism