From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:04:24 GMT

In article <BzxH5r.E4C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	Some people just happen to have more sympathy, I am not
>>	one of them.  I have made it my task to be honest with
>>	myself--if I do nothing else--and I have seen situations
>>	that I would like to pin on others ["you didn't push me
>>	hard enough!"  "You didn't encourage me"] but refused to
>>	do so.  It takes a little practice, but I've found it to
>>	be quite effective.  I have yet to blame society for
>>	anything.
>
>But there is much that society *should* be blamed for. 


	You'll have to be more specific.  I don't agree. 

	You can blame _people_, and to a limited extent you
	can blame groups, but you cannot blame society.

	(I come from the point of view that "if you could have 
	prevented it, and chose not to do so, the responsibility
	is mostly your own" anyway..) 


>>	there are a few here, too--but most of them are still
>>	(what I consider) a little too easy to influence.
>
>Not here -- believe me!


	Grad school, perhaps.  


>>>I know I was more on the wavelength of my spring 1992 class than I was
>>>on that of the fall 1992 class. And my spring students *did* do better.
>>>They were more willing to seek help.
>
>>	True enough for math--but try to apply that to something
>>	like what I take, like languages.  If students do not keep
>>	up and do not practice,they will require hours and hours
>>	of special help to catch up, if that's at all possible.
>
>If you think this is *not* true about mathematics, you are quite
>mistaken.


	No, but you can make efforts to catch up in a math class, 
	particularly if you're willing to sit down and do the problems
	andnot just read the book ("waste time").  You can check if you
	are correct or wrong--because these are absolutes (... most
	of the time).  

	<Still, we're agreed on the basic point>


>>>Entrenched? It's amazing how many institutions and values that seemed
>>>entrenched, in 1992, will have disappeared by 2022.
>
>>	Wishful thinking.
>
>If you remember this exchange in 2022, you're going to be very 
>embarassed. 


	I see gradual change, but nothing radical.  the basics--
	"good wholesome Xtian values" (..) will still be a strong
	force--if not stronger.


>>  I have seen very good arguments that
>>	show economics as a prime mover behind the civil rights 
>>	movement and not civil disobedience and protest.  These
>>	types of arguments are a lot more concrete than the nebulous
>>	arguments that are based on guilt, giving in and whatnot,
>>	and I have seen similar ones on advances in womens rights.
>>	The only real concrete achievement of the people who claim
>>	to be the workers of equality are the fanatical rape laws
>>	(mono-sex definitions of rape, reducing the defendants right
>>	to a fair trial..) and the abortion laws.  While these may or
>>	not be noble things, it is very hard to show that these 
>>	organizations achieved anything but a lot of empty litigation
>>	and handwaving.  The real drive behind getting women into 
>>	the workforce (which I consider the biggest single 
>>	factor in social equality) was economics.  
>
>Note I did *not* say *why* institutions change. This is the subject for
>another discussion, and one that I am not particularly into
>undertaking. I am just glad some of them have (e.g., the abortion
>laws).  


	Ah.


>>	In HS, I didn't see much of anything--most of my teachers
>>	were between 24 and 36, and many were still students.  That
>>	was a special case--from what I've heard, normal HS is 
>>	pretty much even bigotry on both sides of the table, with
>>	some male teachers going over the ropes in a sad attempt
>>	to impress the girls and build their egos (if not fill their
>>	beds).
>
>There was a well-written article in a recent Ms, by a high-school age
>woman, describing teachers who flirted with her, much against her
>wishes. In the article, she said that though some high-school women
>welcomed such attentions, for the free ride it gave them, many others
>regarded them as loathsome.


	JFYI, boys get the same deal, but few get a "free ride"
	--it's either all the way (respond or fail) or nothing at all.

>And, by the way, I suspect that such teachers would discriminate even
>more against young women who didn't meet their standards of
>attractiveness, than males.


	I don't agree at all.  In these situations, the teachers are
	trying to impress and cajole their target, not just pressure.

	You don't do this by making yourself look like a mean bastard.


>>	College is different.  The teachers (outside ofthe voodoo
>>	departments) are generally there because they enjoy what they do and
>>	want to continue to learn and research and so on.  They
>>	have preferences for individuals which do not seem based
>>	on gender at all. (Race, looks, etc., though...) 
>
>Preferences based on race and looks are just as unconscionable as those
>based on gender. 


	Never said otherwise.


>Also note that much more looks prejudice is directed at women; and that,
>in general, women encounter much more inappropriate discrimination based
>on looks then men. (Although the female T.A. drooling at the football
>player is not an unknown spectacle -- and just as disgusting!)


	you'll have to back this assertion up--from my own observation
	it's pretty much even on both sides of the coin.  Worse in
	certain classes (though, the classes I've taken with misandrists
	far outweigh the two I've taken with misogynists)


>>	In WMST, SOCY, AMST--I saw plenty of anti-male *sexism*--
>>	it can be labelled nothing else. 
>
>This statement doesn't sound unreasonable. You may even convince many
>feminists that it's true. If you want to present convincing evidence for
>this statement, let me recommend the following strategies:
>
>1) Give as much specific detail, and as little opinion, as you can. Let
>the facts speak for themselves.
>
>2) Give extreme and obvious examples. 


	No need to.  anyone who has taken a WMST class knows *exactly*
	what I am referring to:  the entire class is conducted in an
	atmosphere hostile to men.  The teachers routinely ignore the
	male students when they attempt to ask questions, or when they
	bother to reply, they give an answer like "You can't understand
	because you're part of the oppression".  Further, they tend to
	grade unfairly (believe me, I saw some of the "A" papers) 
	and will often refuse the male students the same courtesies
	they extend to their female students.  (What, missed a quiz?
	Tough.  So what if I let Janet retake it because she got a low
	grade and Jane because she missed the same day you did--I'm not
	*required* to do so).. 


>>	I have never seen sexism on the job...
>
>I sure have. Though, I must admit, it varies tremendously from
>institution to institution.


	Care to post a comparison inside and outside the academic world?

>Lenore Levine


-- 
	This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
	to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.