From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:18:45 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct4.172022.26121@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>Long reply...
>
>>In article <1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>

[Various statements gone.]

>
>If by power you mean political power, then it is true that
>most politicians are men.  However few political decisions
>are gender specific, and if they are, are usually popular
>pro-female/anti-male ones.  The accession of female leaders
>(e.g. Margaret Thatcher) should result in a large movement
>of power towards women, which doesn't happen.

There may be more gender specific legislation than you realize.  A piece of
legislation does not need to directly address gender to affect a majority of
one gender favorably/unfavorably, especially when it is considered in
conjunction with the general state of society.
FWIW, I'm not keen on direct pro-female/anti-male legislation.

>If you are talking about power in personal relationships,
>then women have more power here than men IMHO.

In most personal relationships I know of, the power is divided equally.  I'll
assume we have different sets of friends and/or different word-views.

>If you are talking about power in business, then I think
>there is little discrimination in job applications (in the
>US).  As for the 'old-boy network' I have seen no evidence
>that a women is less likely to have someone pull strings
>for them than a man.

I think there is still a *lot* of discrimination going on in hiring choices.
I would welcome (asked for) any data from a decent study on this.
I agree women are as likely as men to pull strings when they can;  I think it
likely that fewer women have strings to pull.
This is changing, though, and I think it will even out someday.

>If you are talking about money (purchasing) power, women
>have more.

Hmmm.  I assume you have some sort of statistical data for this.  And I'm not
even surprised, especially if you are counting purchases made by a housewife
doing grocery shopping with money earned by a husband as purchasing power for
women in the comparison.  I've seen such a study, and I wasn't impressed.

>It is a stereotype when you treat members of a group
>differently by assuming that a statistical correlation
>(or worse, a vague feeling) means it is true/untrue for each
>member without finding out the circumstances of the
>individual.
>E.g. I have a vague feeling that women are more
>discriminated against, so I will give preference to all
>female job applicants.  Blacks are statistically more likely
>to have convictions for theft, so I won't employ them.

It is a stereotype.  It's wrong.  Quotas are wrong.  They should be abolished.
They may have had an overall good effect by quickly (if unjustly) evening
up the male/female (and racial imbalances) but the end doesn't justify the
means.

>>Don't you think something could and should be done to reduce this?
>
>People should receive help based on their individual problem,
>*not* on what group they happen to belong/not belong to.
>That just guarantees more victimisation.
>
>If you promote action based on stereotypes, then you are
>part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I didn't promote action based on stereotypes.  I did say that women are, in
general, discriminated against more than men and ask if you thought something
could be done.  I am not pro-affirmative action.  I was hoping you had an
answer that would reduce discrimination without causing reverse-discrimination.
It was an unfair question, since I don't have a better answer either.  Maybe
we'll think of something together.  :-)
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu