From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Are special programs sexist? was (Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:53:43 GMT

In article <BzoCHF.GC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Rich:
>>>>It's only sexism if it's to the advantage of white males, I keep forgetting.
>>>>Do you imagine that a "summer research program in mathematics, for talented"
>>>>male "undergraduates" would be well recieved or precieved as non-sexist?
>>>>I suspect women everywhere would be in an uproar.
>
>Lenore:
>>>The only reason I am in favor of programs like the Mills College
>>>program, is because in the current culture, *many* women have obstacles
>>>to overcome in entering mathematics. If this were not the case, I
>>>would not be in favor of such a program. 
>
>Rich:
>>There is a distinct difference between removing the barriers and
>>-allowing- women the option and the present system of offering aid
>>and condoning differential treatment based upon sex.
>
>Lenore: 
>>>You have a point, though, that these programs should be geared more
>>>towards helping *individuals* who have a history of cultural obstacles,
>>>not members of specific *groups*.
>
>Rich:
>>How about -any- individual who shows talent and desire? I do not believe 
>>that you can seperate "cultural obstacles" and "members of specific *groups*".
>
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>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.

>                                           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. 
 
>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 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? 

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?

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


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6446 soc.men:21707 soc.women:21846