From: ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist?  (long)
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:27:55 GMT

Ever noticed how when women want to have something (a school, meeting, etc.
just for women it is "women's space, etc.", but when men want to have some-
thing just for men it is "sexism"?
 
There are about 100 (last time I looked) women's colleges left.  There are
seven men's.  (Wabash, Renssaler,St. Johns/Minnesota, VMI, Hampton-Sydney,
the Cidadel, and Morehouse.)
 
I am willing to accept that some students' educational needs would be best
accomodated in a single-sex setting.  However, if I were a guidance counselor
with both a boy and a girl in my office, each of whom I determined should go
to a single-sex school. . . .well, there you are; the boy has seven choices,
the girl has about 100.
In article <1992Dec31.170217.6468@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bztx2r.Bt2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>A trivial point. Occupational inclinations *do* tend to run in families,
>>even though not everyone follows those of their family. (There's a study
>>of this in a textbook on mathematical modeling.)
>
>Then none of the people from the Rural Poverty Culture (RPC) will even
>be be applying for a position in research mathematics, as they will be
>following their family occupation. You have invalidated the need for
>such programs by eliminating any possible applicants.
>
>And there is no mathematical model that I am aware of which says anything
>(even potentially) about INDIVIDUAL behavior. You are still dealing with a
>class, to which you assign attributes in a stereotypical fashion. In this
>it would seem that you are in disagreement with several feminists who
>post here.
>
>>I don't think overcoming disadvantages is an on-off thing. Specifically,
>>I know quite well that it is not.
>
>But being in the right -class- of the disadvantaged is. And further,
>this can be determined from background, sex, and color.
>
>>I am a 43-year-old woman, who is currently a graduate student in
>>mathematics (and doing well, thank you). I am also learning disabled
>>(which has actually affected my life more than my academic performance).
>>And I didn't know any mathematics till I was over 30.
>
>I am curious, how is it that a learning disability does not get in the
>way?
>
>>I do think my efforts have shown that I do belong in research
>>mathematics. I was never given a free ride, not in any way. But I could
>>not have made it without people in *some* ways taking my background into
>>account.
>>
>>Note that the referee of my paper most certainly did *not* take my
>>background into account (and might not even have known my name). That is
>>as it should be!
>
>Except for special programs and hiring quotas and the like.
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
>>cases.
>
>Let me try again, all you have posted seems to be at odds with this idea,
>and in favor of class determinations of eligibility.
>
>>>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 are some cases, in which membership in a certain category makes it
>>almost certain that a person has faced inordinate obstacles; and in
>>these cases, it is IMHO morally acceptable to, for example, provide
>>scholarships and awards specifically targeted to members of that
>>category.
>
>Specifically, as long as they are not white males. So you support
>sexism and racism when they meet your political ideals. What about the
>rest of the time, what say you then?
>
>>                 There are other cases in which membership in a certain
>>category does *not* show that a person has faced such obstacles, or may
>>even indicate that a person has faced less obstacles.
>
>But you just said...
>|Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
>|cases.
>
>Do you support -exclusion- based upon membership of a class which you
>define as not having obstacles? (and it seems to be assumption based
>to a great degree) In cases of limited seating, are you in favor of
>passing over those you deem from the wrong background to give the
>available seats to those with the 'proper' social background?
>
>>Let me give you some very extreme examples:
>>
>>Suppose someone had after World War II set up a scholarship for
>>concentration camp survivors, or set up one for Somalians today. Would
>>you have any objection to this on moral grounds?
>
>Is sexism and racism right, wrong, or conditionally right or wrong in
>your eyes? Are there any circumstances where you would consider favoritism
>not in your favor as right?
>
>>On the other hand, veteran science fiction writer Andre Norton (a woman)
>
>I was surprised to find out 'he' was a woman, for a bit. I did not stop
>reading her books.
>
>>at one time set up a special award for female science fiction writers.
>>This may have seemed quite reasonable at the time, since
>>female science fiction writers were in the minority and may have
>>suffered some discrimination. However, at the present time I suspect
>>at least 33% of all science fiction writers are female -- maybe even more
>>than 50% -- and a lot of people, even feminists, are questioning whether
>>this award should continue.
>
>And what do you say?
>
>>Obviously, the issue of the Mills College summer program for female
>>undergraduates is much less clear-cut. My intuition is that it *is*
>>justified;
>
>I know this is badly overused, but Hitler justified putting jews in the
>gas chamber. I could care less for whatever personal justifications you
>may have, and -all- justifications are personal (IMHO).
>
>>             but I think we should devote a specific, future posting to
>>discussing this particular issue.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I cannot speak for all women.
>
>Don't have to, the subject was these omnipowerful cultural stereotypes
>which are killing women right and left, and doing other horrible things.
>
>>                                      I know *I* was brainwashed by the
>>stereotypes, and did not overcome such brainwashing till I was over 30.
>
>And now you know the right way to brainwash others, is that it?
>
>>And, as a over-30 graduate student who had to support herself, I
>>*definitely* had some disadvantages to overcome.
>
>It seems that you have not overcome sexism and racism.
>
>>>>It is a rare social policy that will *always* be useful, forever.
>>
>>>I thought we were discussing whether current policies are reasonable, now.
>>
>>One of your arguments against the Mills College program, was that it may
>>indeed be less appropriate at some future time.
>
>No, that was your argument. I question the hypocrisy of such a program now.
>Sexism ain't dead, it's live and well at Mills College, and all other female
>colleges as well. And it seems most women support this sexism. They are far
>less than supportive when they percieve men doing the same thing.
>
>>                                             I am not arguing with
>>you on this. I am just saying that *all* social institutions have a
>>limited lifespan; that *none* should be regarded as permanent.
>
>I am saying that Government programs have no such limited lifespans.
>And if they promote sexism, it will be with us for years to come.
>
>>>>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".
>>
>>But, by your standards, you are also "sexist" and "racist".
>
>Excuse me, this does not follow from what I have written. If you think
>that it does, show me what made you think so. All the text is still here.
>
>>                                                      Or would you
>>be against the Somalian scholarship described above? What about a
>>scholarship for Saudi Arabian women? (Do you know the disadvantages
>>*they* face, even those of royal background?)
>
>Actually, I am against any programs which give foreign nationals
>advantages over U.S. citizens in the U.S., especially when funded by
>tax dollars.
>
>>I am not saying that American women are in such an extreme situation. I
>>am saying that the issue is how reasonable a *specific* program is.
>
>It seems you see nothing wrong with being sexist or racist, at least
>insofar as it is to your advantage, or to the advantage of those causes
>you would champion (with others funds I might add).
>
>>>I just feel that the solution should -solve- the problem, not mirror it.
>>
>>Then what *is* your solution? Be specific!!!
>
>I am not even sure we see the same problem. If sexism and racism are
>problems, then we need to support only non-sexist/racist programs, and
>put an end to all institutionalized sexism/racism. This is the solution
>to this problem. What is being done is selectively supporting/REQUIRING
>certain forms of sexism/racism, and then everyone wonders why it has not gone
>away.
>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I agree with you a thousand times over that ability is what should be
>>served, and that people have different inherent abilities. But what do
>>you take as the indicator of ability? Shouldn't the ability to overcome
>>social obstacles be taken into account?
>
>Not unless it is related to the subject. What does this ability have
>to do with mathematics for example? Should we also count juggling
>ability and the ability to ride a unicycle as mathematics talent?
>
>>Doesn't it mean more (I credit this example to William Raspberry) when a
>>young person from Cabrini-Green gets 700 on their math SAT than when a
>>person from a New England prep school does?
>
>Perhaps to the young persons involved, but it should make no difference
>in admission of selection for programs.
>
>>                                              Wouldn't you suspect that
>>the first person probably has *more* innate ability to perform the tasks
>>measured by this test?
>
>No, why would you make this -assumption-?
>
>>(Note. I am not saying that SAT scores are a reliable indicator of
>>mathematics ability; just using them as an example.)
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Please do not expect me to defend rini and Muffy's beliefs (although in
>>many ways mine are similar). I can only defend my own!
>
>I am not, but you do not match the definition that they have given for
>a feminist. Do you consider yourself a feminist or not?
>
>>Specifically, I do believe that in *most* cases people should be legally
>>and culturally free to do what makes decent common sense with their own
>>life. (Note I said *decent* common sense; and note I can name extreme
>>cases in which this right would not apply.)
>
>I disagee, this is a recipe for disaster across cultural boundaries.
>Whatever limits are set in the native culture -are- what is right and proper.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>I am sorry you have a problem with what I'm saying; but I don't think
>>your problem is very sincere.
>
>You misintrepret my words! :^) I did not say that `I have a problem',
>I said that "Then you would probably sell my franchise for your personal
>advancement and call that "social justice". I have a problem with that."
>It seems that you have a problem -reading- it.
>
>>                               I cannot imagine that you really have a
>>problem with the idea that "good" will not exactly follow any book, any
>>specific definition, that you cannot give *any* verbal description of
>>good which will always be right, all the time, that you always have to
>>follow your individual conscience.
>>
>>You may not agree with these ideas, but they are the keystone of Reform
>>Judaism and certain brands of Protestantism. I cannot believe you've
>>never encountered them before.
>>
>>(Note: Of course, I am not saying that there are not some ideas, or
>>books, that should be taken very seriously. Just that people should not
>>follow them to the neglect of their conscience!)
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Suppose the person from a standard background actually has less ability?
>
>It seems not to be an issue, you seem to be making your determination of
>merit purely upon your assessment of the background.
>
>Ability should be the overriding concern, if not the only concern.
>
>>I am not saying that people from a nonstandard background of less ability
>>should be favored over those from a standard background of more ability.
>
>Then what difference does the "nonstandard background" make?
>
>>I am saying that a history of overcoming cultural obstacles, may be
>>relevant in determining what that ability really is!
>
>Aren't we a bit metaphysical here?
>
>>                                                       And I know many
>>specific cases where such considerations *did* turn out to be relevant,
>>and will post them if necessary!
>
>Post one if you please.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>>Rich
>>>payner@netcom
>>
>>I would like to continue this thread too. And I would also like to hear
>>from Muffy and Rini. I *do* see a requirement for this, because I think
>>in some of the matters discussed they may represent the mainstream of
>>net.feminists more than I do. For these reasons, I changed the subject
>>line back again.
>
>And I changed it back yet again.
>
>>Lenore Levine
>>
>>P.S. Rich, and others. I posted an essay to the net last summer, which
>>touches on some of the subject mentioned in this posting. Please let
>>me know if you want a copy.
>
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism