| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 165.1 | I agree. However... | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Wed Jan 14 1987 12:27 | 15 |
| I think I mostly agree with you. However, I think most of the
differences between men and women in their abilities is environmentally
induced, not genetic (apart from obvious things like breast-feeding).
The really important thing to remember is that average tendencies
of a group do not say anything about any particular individual.
When sexism (or any other sort of prejudice, meaning pre-judging)
is legislated into law, the real or perceived genetic differences
between groups of people as groups become limitations on individual
achievement and potential. THAT's what's wrong with being a vocal
defender of the "genetic differences" thesis; not that it is likely
to be completely false, but that it can lead to bad results (especially
when some of the listeners have their own axes to grind...or need
a way to feel superior to others).
/Charlotte
|
| 165.2 | what good does truth do if it's not true? | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Wed Jan 14 1987 12:49 | 58 |
| >You might argue that believing this generalization might sometimes
>result in denial of some rights, and i would agree. But let's not
>deny possible truth because it may create prejudice. Lets fight the
>prejudice itself.
"Truths" are extraordinarily difficult to prove... especially
with something of the complexity of a human.
Why do you choose to adhere to an unverifiable belief, knowing
that it may result in "denial of some rights"? You've
established to your own satisfaction, apparently, the legitimate
exceptions to your belief... have you verified the belief
itself? If so, why not explain how... and if not, why do
you cling to it?
In any case, you've as much as admitted that your belief is of
no practical value in predicting the nature of the universe...
since you claim different rules are necessary for individuals
than for the sexes as a whole. If a "law of the universe" (even
if it really *is* a law) is of no value in predicting the
reality of the universe (and you admit yours is not), then
what's the purpose of even talking about it?
Certainly there may be inherent mental differences between
the sexes. It may well be that our planet is really flat,
and that the sun revolves around it: many people still believe
(or at least profess to believe) so. But there's a significant
body of evidence discrediting that theory... and I would
suggest that your admission that a man could be as good or
better at nursing than a woman, and that a woman could be
as good or better at automechanics than a man, is equally
discrediting evidence. If there is supporting evidence,
I've never seen any; and that supporting evidence would need
to be more solid and extensive than the discrediting evidence
to make the theory reasonable even for abstract statistical
purposes...
Obviously it will *never* be useful for individual purposes...
but, as with any statistical tool (even if it were correct),
people would misuse it to prove individual cases (as in people
who strongly believe that statistics proves that the probability
of a coin toss coming up "heads" increases with each "tails"
tossed in a row). Therefore, even if your theory is true, I can
see absolutely no practical purpose to pushing it on anyone...
and every reason to ignore it.
If nothing else, "proving" that "women" are better suited
for nursing than automechanics could discourage women from
persuing the latter career... and possibly losing society
a proficient automechanic in trade for an incompetant and
unhappy nurse.
In short (and this is weird coming from someone who usually
pushes "truth at all costs"), if your theory is untrue, it's
amusing and should be forgotten. If your theory is *true*,
it's *dangerous*, and should be forgotten!
/dave
|
| 165.3 | not provable | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Wed Jan 14 1987 13:12 | 20 |
| re -1:
I was about to enter the same statement, Dave. These things are
not provable - whether differences in men and women are environmentally
induced or are inherent. But I'd say that the cases that "deviate"
from the "norm" stand as an indication that the differences are
environmental rather than inherent. I think that if these differences
were really inherent, then a lot fewer people (men and women) would
deviate.
As for breast-feeding, that's purely physical and biological.
Traditionally, women have nursed out of physical necessity, not
because of a better emotional ability to nurture. It's because her
body is better suited for that task than a man's body is. As we all
know, there are biological differences between men and women.
Pointing out women's ability to breast-feed does not prove that women
inherently have a better "nurturing" ability than men (except
physically and only for this short amount of time after her body is born).
-Ellen
|
| 165.4 | You may need to do some serious re-thinking on this one... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 14:08 | 47 |
| RE: .0
You spoke of a man "overcoming genetic tendencies"
in order to do well as a nurse.
What makes you so sure that he had to do that (or
that I had to overcome genetic tendencies to become a
hardware engineer who has a very high aptitude for math)?
If a woman finds that automechanics comes "naturally"
to her (just as I found that taking apart computers came
naturally to me) -- how does that fit into your theory?
Do you think that our male and female hormones have
had an affect on the cognitive abilities of our brains?
(Does that mean that it would help women if they took male
hormones before a math test?)
I'm dead certain that many men would be only too happy
to breast-feed if they had breasts that would make milk.
It is, unfortunately, a physical limitation that they will
never be able to overcome. Just as I will never be able
to biologically father a child.
Our brains, however, have no such drastic differences
that *I've* ever seen proven. There are cultural influences
(strong ones!), but they have nothing to do with innate
ability.
Cultural influences can do very little to stop a person
who is highly motivated in a non-traditional direction (whether
or not that person is exceptionally bright in *any* direction.)
For those of us who also have a natural aptitude for some
skills that are normally attribued to the opposite sex (and are
highly motivated as well) -- I doubt that any of us have
spent a single micro-second "overcoming genetic tendencies"
to have gotten where we are (however, many of us have spent
literally a *LIFETIME* overcoming the prejudices of people
who believe that women are genetically inferior to men when
it comes to mathematical and technical skills.)
Fortunately, we rarely run across people with these
beliefs anymore. (I find it fascinating to see it here
-- however, it's just as untrue now as it was when more
people had this unfortunate idea.)
Suzanne...
|
| 165.5 | My criterion for sexism. | SLAYER::SHARP | Don Sharp, Digital Telecommunications | Wed Jan 14 1987 15:50 | 19 |
| I suggest we change the focus to what the title suggests: how do we judge
sexism? If we can't agree on that let's change the title to "A Big Rat-hole
With a Trip Wire In Front Of It."
I suggest we judge according to the following criterion. Do you beleive, or
do you act as if, men are more entitled to basic human rights or the
benefits of "the good life" than women? That women are and shoud remain
second class citizens, and should be satisfied with less than equal rights
under the law? If so then you're sexist, and whatever justification you have
for being sexist is beside the point. Whether you think women are just
naturally second class citizens or whether you think women could potentially
be first class citizens if they hadn't been brought up to accept second
class treatment doesn't matter. If you think there's any reason for treating
women as inferiors that's sexism. And if you think you can treat women as
inferiors without having a reason for it that's sexism too!
If
Don.
|
| 165.6 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | Security is not pretty | Wed Jan 14 1987 16:21 | 17 |
| And yet another slant (blithely ignoring Don's suggestion; so sorry).
People are trying to prove the exact same sort of genetic stuff
about blacks and whites (it sounds like they ignore the rest of
the rainbow in their studies). I agree with earlier replies on the
merit of such studies.
I also believe it is incorrect to use an aptitude for a single,
narrow skill to judge how well a person will do in a certain
job/career. There's more to nursing than nuturing; there's more
to auto mechanics than math. Which means I believe the base assertion
to be doubly non-useful/not-interesting/harmful.
And, .0 ignores a society that is based upon valuing traditionally
male skills, and devaluing traditionally female skills. Given that
society, the assertion .0 slips right into sexism, as defined in
.5 (Don).
Mez
|
| 165.7 | Truth is not sexism, and vice versa | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Jan 14 1987 18:46 | 94 |
| Having always been a glutton for punishment, I'll come in on the
side of recognizing truth regardless of how it sits with your
ideology. To my eye, allowing your ideology to determine what
you will and will not believe about the world or what you allow
to be said about it is prejudice and antithetical to the
principles of a freedom that we hold dear in the U.S.
That means to me that if it is true that men and women are
different behaviorally because they are different
physiologically then that is the truth, and it should be
admitted and be allowed to be expressed. If it is possible it
should be allowed to be expressed as well. If it is absolutely
known to be false and has significant negative impact (rather
like the old cry of "fire!" in a theater) then perhaps it would
be reasonable to suppress it. Pretty big "if" there.
Also, personally, it is always best to know about yourself
whether the information is good or bad. I am mildly dyslexic and
have what is termed a learning difficulty (evidenced by my
inability to learn the word "woman"? :-)) When I learned that
the way I learn is different from the way other people learn,
that they way I perceive letters, words and writing in general
is different, it was both liberating and enabling.
It is liberating I don't blame myself for being different. I
know that that is how I am. It is enabling because I know now
how I learn best. I read and write very well now and I can learn
almost anything just about as fast as anyone else, often much
faster. Those things that are likely to be hard I can predict in
advance and allocate appropriate time to.
Now the $64 question: Are there real behavioral differences
between men and women that are based on physiology. The answer,
as far I as I have seen it it would appear to be "yes,
probably". There is some research (some of it by a woman who
expected the contrary results) that there is a correlation
between the fetal level of male hormones and later mathematical
ability, as well as with other things like susceptibility to
migraine head-aches.
There is evidence that women's brains tend to be more
functionally bilaterally symmetrical than those of men. In other
words all this right-brain/left-brain talk applies more to men
than to women. Functionality in women doesn't appear to reside
as strongly on one side or the other, and women don't appear to
have as much of a dominant hemisphere.
Additionally, a number of learning difficulties are much more
common in men than in women. It is not coincidental that I am
male and slightly dyslexic. According to some measures, as many
as 40% of all men are at least marginally dyslexic.
In many ways it appears as if women are genetically the "norm"
for humanity. Men are deviant--they excel in some things such as
mathematical abilities (on the average), but pay the price by
being more susceptible to various syndromes and ailments,
such as migraine head-aches and learning and perception
disabilities.
What impact should this have on us and how we live our lives and
how we treat each other? Not a lot, other than to help us to
understand our own limitations and those of others--understand
not amplify or impose. It certainly doesn't mean that Suzanne
should have been tracked away from a technical career or
education or that my dyslexic brother should have been tracked
away from college (as he was). Rather, it means that many Janes
and Marys in the world should not feel that they *have* follow
Suzanne's lead if they don't want to, and that if my brother had
difficulty or was unable or uninterested in furthering his
education his decision should be supported in whatever way is
appropriate.
That is the point. We should be equally free to do whatever we
choose. Beyond that we should all support each other in whatever
we endeavor, and the support should be as educated and as
appropriate as possible. If someone chooses not to utilize a
strength but to try to overcome a weakness they should be
encouraged and helped. By recognizing that the obstacle is there
we can better cope with it. On the other hand if people choose
to utilize their strengths and avoid their weaknesses we should
let them the effort saved by not fighting the hard fight may
allow for real excellence in the chosen field.
Sexism is holding people back because of their sex. It can be
either forbidding them to do what their sex has not normally
done *or* it can be denying that real differences are there and
thus ill-equipping them to deal with reality. It can be forcing
people to fulfill stereotypes or to try to break out of the
reality of their own heritage. We should recognize the actual
strengths and weakness of each person, and the trends that can
be seen in various groups, and deal with the world the way it is
and not the way we wish it were.
JimB.
|
| 165.8 | The dangers FAR OUTWEIGH any possible (UNPROVEN) truth.... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Jan 14 1987 21:12 | 88 |
| RE: .7
If it *were* true that women are genetically
inferior to men in terms of abilities like math, it
is quite possible that it *might* help women to be
aware of it (so that we could "overcome genetic
tendencies" as .0 stated, in the event that we find
ourselves interested in a technical career.)
However, it has yet to be proven that we *are*
genetically inferior (and I, for one, do not buy it now
nor will I ever.) So the knowledge that I *might* be
genetically inferior could *HURT* me if at some point
in my career an imaginary manager said, "No, Suzanne,
we have decided not to let you become a Corporate
Consulting Engineer because we feel that the strain of
having to overcome genetic tendencies in order to take
this position would be overwhelming for even the most
determined person -- we feel that this position would
be hazardous to your health."
There *HAVE* to be some other as yet unknown
(or un-discussed) factors that influence *ALL OF US*
in the level of innate math ability that we receive.
I'm not at all surprised that someone found a
correlation between the level of "fetal male hormones"
and math ability. For so long, more men than women
chose to DEVELOP their math skills (and those men more
than likely had higher levels of male hormones than the
women surveyed.) Are any of us *POSITIVE* that they had
an accurate way to distinguish between INNATE math ability
and the results of having been culturally supported to
DEVELOP math ability?
Until we have the proof in our hot little hands
that women are genetically inferior to men (in terms of
innate math and technical abilities) it does MUCH MORE
HARM THAN GOOD to *prepare ourselves* to accept it by
believing it ahead of time (with *EXTREMELY* sketchy
evidence so far.)
It would have the same effect as announcing to the
world that black people are inferior to whites (and then
trying to sell it to blacks by saying, "Well, if you *DO*
turn out to be inferior, isn't it better to know it and
face it?") It sounds almost reasonable on the surface,
but the important thing to remember is that it is YET TO
BE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY (and therefore, it is *NOT AT ALL*
worth subjecting people to the potential damage that could
be done by having us all accept it ahead of time *JUST
IN CASE*!!)
So what is the point of even discussing the
possibility that women *MIGHT* be genetically inferior?
There is so little evidence to support it that it is
insulting to have even brought it up. (But not really
that surprising since the whole idea of prejudice against
women has *ALWAYS* been based on arguments like genetic
inferiority.)
But, sorry! You'd have better luck trying to hold
up the Golden Gate Bridge with rotten wood than trying
to make a case for the idea that mathematical abilities
are determined by the presence (or absence) of male hormones.
If that were the case, we should also be able to see other
manifestations of that phenomenon (such as realizing that
extremely hairy men were better at math than non-hairy
men.) We could go on to say that only the biggest, hairiest,
most ostensibly male men could cope with the intricacies
of computers. (Look around you at DEC -- are we a company
filled with men who have the most excessive levels of male
hormones known to exist on earth??)
The theory does not hold up. Therefore, we would
be wasting our time (and possibly doing ourselves a great
deal of damage) to entertain *ANY* sort of ideas about
genetic inferiority with so little proof. (Although, I
can definitely see where it might benefit those factions
in our society that would *LIKE* to see women return to
their previous status of accepting that we are inferior
to men.) No reference intended to any males in this note
in particular.
Can you see the *REAL DANGER* of this line of
thinking????
Suzanne...
|
| 165.9 | ******* TRUCE!! ******* | 8233::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Jan 15 1987 04:52 | 168 |
| After reading some of the notes/replies that have
been written in the past few days, I have some grave concerns
about the nature of discussions on the issues that affect
women. I'm not the first person to point this out, but I've
noticed that it's almost impossible to discuss many of these
issues without finding massive amounts of bickering BETWEEN
and AMONG the sexes.
This bickering is spilling over into other non-work
notesfiles (and my feeling is that it is turning into a giant
multi-conference rathole.)
Are women different from men? Biologically, behavior-
ally, cognitively? Do we use the left side of the brain or
the right? Do we nurture more than men nurture? Are they
predisposed to math and science (while we are predisposed to
making babies and baking cookies?)
Should we be equal? Are we equal? Do we want to
be equal? Do *THEY* want us to be equal? Will they *ALLOW*
us to be equal?
Do all of us want children? Do all of us want/need
men? If we DON'T want children or men, how do MEN feel about
that?
Should we be angry at men? Whose fault is this whole
mess ANYWAY??
I'd like to call a truce on this.
In the real world, where I spend most of my time,
I have never seen a battle between the sexes such as the
one I'm seeing here. I watch the battle lines being drawn
on a daily basis and I have to ask myself "Why?"
Whatever sort of case *ANYONE* feels he/she can make
about the differences between the sexes (in whatever ways
he/she chooses to elaborate on them) -- it won't change who I am
and it won't change who ANY of us are (unless we let it.)
Personally, I don't subscribe to sexual stereotypes (don't
believe that I can predict anyone's behavior or attributes
based on sex, and certainly don't conform my own behavior
nor set my life-goals according to other people's ideas on
what I *should* be doing as a woman.)
This is the 80's, for God's sake. We have choices!!
Being technical (and math-oriented) as a female DOES NOT rule
out being nurturing as well. Men can choose to be EVERY BIT
as nurturing as women have ever been (aside from being able
to breast-feed.) I have known many fathers who are INCREDIBLY
nurturing (and proud of it!!)
We are *NOT* total slaves to our environment (or to
the affects that fetal hormones have had on our brains.) Some
people are born with strong degrees of innate abilities in math
(male or female) -- some are not (male or female.) Some choose
to develop those skills. Highly motivated people of either sex
can develop a few skills into some MAJOR accomplishments!! People
(male or female) with MANY skills can choose to ignore them
and let them fall to waste. This can happen no matter WHAT
our culture urges us to do.
The sexual stereotypes are all in our minds. There
are *NONE* that exist in reality (except for straight biolo-
gical differences mostly related to our reproductive systems.)
For every stereotype that can be named, I can give examples
of persons who defy that stereotype. Something that unreliable
as a predictor of behavior is not worth treating seriously.
Not *ALL* women have PMS. That is *NOT* by any means
a Universal Affliction among women (not by a long shot!!)
While I can sympathize with those that have it, I do not for
a minute concede that it is common to all of us. (Some of us
have completely boring monthly episodes that we hardly notice.)
The replies from women (and men) in this conference
*DO NOT* (I repeat, *DO NOT*) reflect the way women and
men feel in general. There are billions of people on this
planet -- the authors are speaking for themselves ONLY!!!!!
There are *NO* useful generalizations that can be drawn from
anything that can be seen here (*OR* that can be seen in the
limited experiences of our own lives!!)
There are *NO* useful generalizations. Period.
I can't stop anyone from believing that sexual
stereotypes exist and are important things in our lives.
I know there are some men who *HATE* the fact that women
have changed from what we once were (or from what they
once THOUGHT we were.) I can't console those people --
but neither can any of us STOP what has happened to our
roles as women. We now have choices (and all the sexists
in the world aren't going to be able to STOP that!!)
I like the 80's myself. I like being able to do
what I want to do with my career (and not having to fight
an uphill battle anymore since I joined Digital.) This
corporation has *MORE* than met my expectations for pro-
viding me with opportunities. I like my group, I like my
male and female co-workers, I like my career in general!
The two most important things in my life have been
raising my child and having a career. My son Ryan is 16
and I'm only just beginning to comprehend the impact that
his young life has had on me (the *POSITIVE* impact!) The
feelings I have for him are beyond description. If I could
go through it all again, I'd love to repeat the entire
experience of knowing him as an infant on up to teenager.
(My fondest wish is that I will have two more children in
the next several years.)
My career has been a difficult challenge, but one
that I've been able to meet (thanks to some work and some
fortunate opportunities provided by DEC.) It has been
extremely satisfying (and there are new and interesting
things coming my way in the future in DEC.)
Ryan and my career have always been closely tied
together because *HE* provided me with most of the inspiration
to succeed. I had to take care of us (so I did.) Simple.
I've had much enjoyment along the way (fixing computers.)
Ryan and computers have given me the best of both worlds!!
I can't say that men (as love interests) have been
a positive influence on me, but men "AS FRIENDS" certainly
have. The commaraderie of men as co-workers has ALWAYS been
enjoyable (even in the early days of my technical career,
when times for women were pretty tough.) As for men as love
interests -- I'm still young (I have lots of time left for
those positive experiences, too!) And I *intend* to have
those experiences if at all possible.
No man in the world can look any of us in the eye
and tell us that we are NOT going to be allowed to be what
we want to be. No man has that power any more (unless we
as individuals GIVE him that power.) We have choices now.
No one can stop that -- it's too late.
It's all UP TO US to do something with the chances
we've been given (or to NOT do something with them.) What-
ever we CHOOSE.
As I will no longer have the time to follow this
conference anymore (because of heavy career commitments in
the next 6 months), I would like to make a request that the
bickering subside for awhile about the issues involving
women.
SURELY there are *positive* aspects to the changes
we've seen in the past 20 years!! We have CHOICES now --
we can be whatever we decide to be (even if our choice is
to be the women our mothers were.) We have opportunities
(but we aren't being FORCED to use them -- we can choose!)
I'd like to think that someone has something positive
to say about what it means to be a woman in the 80's. Myself,
I happen to think it's filled with tremendous posibilities!!
(Life isn't perfect, of course, but then IT NEVER WAS!!)
Is it possible at this late date to climb out of the
rathole and possibly increase the level of understanding/
tolerance that we all have for each other (as people)?
So long and my best wishes
to all of you!!
Suzanne...
|
| 165.10 | Ignoring it won't help. | SPIDER::PARE | | Thu Jan 15 1987 08:31 | 31 |
| Sexism is easy to spot. Sexism takes from a woman. Either it takes
her money, or her choices, or her dignity, but it always takes
something. Any kind of prejudice does the same. The 80's have
brought some very hard times for many women. Some of the judges
in our justice system think it is ok to beat us. Some of the
politicians in our political system think that if we are young and
unmarried and have children we don't deserve to maintain a decent
living standard. Across the world it gets better and it gets worse.
We are different than men. Acknowledging our differences does not
make us inferior. It makes us different. After going through this
exercise in Human_Relations Note 186, I am surprised at the level
of hostility some men seem to hold toward women and children. To
pretend the hostility doesn't exist doesn't help us.
I wonder now where the human race is heading. I try to invision
our society in ten years or a hundred years. To deny our differences
is to portend our doom. Men have different values and priorities
than we do. Then care about weapons and machines and power more
than we do. Those values have played an integral and very important
role in our society, we have evolved to what we are because of them.
Those values will distroy us if we don't somehow bring some balance
back. We need a woman's values to reflect in our society now.
We need to care more about the poor and the young, and the helpless.
I don't know what's going to happen to us but if there was ever
a time that we ever needed to acknowledge and work out our differences
the time is now.
to acknowledge and work out our differences
|
| 165.11 | We're all on this planet together..... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Jan 15 1987 08:40 | 13 |
| RE: .10
Well, not all of us have a clearly defined
sense of what "women's values" are -- I know that
I don't. My values come from what I have learned
from my heritage as a human being (partly from the
American culture, and partly from my religion.)
If we continue to see the world as "us and
them" -- how do we ever get together?
Suzanne...
|
| 165.12 | on know | SPIDER::PARE | | Thu Jan 15 1987 09:38 | 4 |
| I guess knowing ourselves is a prerequisite to most human
understanding.
Mary
|
| 165.13 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Thu Jan 15 1987 10:02 | 28 |
|
Re .8, I agree with Suzanne. I admit I haven't ever read any studies
regarding whether or not men are superior to women in regard to
math and mechanical abilities. But, just my observations of people
during my lifetime would seem to disprove it. My own daughter has
been an A student in math all through school so far (she's in 7th
grade). She's been in an accelerated math course and has scored
in the 99 percentile in nationwide aptitude tests in math. She's
also far better than I am at fixing broken "things" around the house,
and quicker to understand how mechanical things work. Other than
that, she is an extremely cute, feminine 13 yr. old, who has a great
sense of style in regard to clothes, hair and make-up. Seems like she has no trouble cnoombining being cute
no trouble combining being feminine with being a math wiz! (I haven't
noticed any hair on her chest yet, so don't think she has any
excessive male hormones!)
I, myself, always hated math and had a terrible time understanding
it, but I remember *guys* in my high school classes who did even
*worse* in math than I did, and girls who did well in math. I think
that so far more men have become scientists, engineers, and mechanics
only because they were raised in an environment that encouraged
it. I don't think genetics has anything to do with it. (This is
just my opinion since I haven't read any of the studies on it.
I never read any of the studies about whites being superior to blacks
either. I guess I didn't think they'd be worth reading.)
Lorna
|
| 165.14 | we're "discussing" | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Thu Jan 15 1987 10:03 | 7 |
| re .9:
We're not "bickering", we're "discussing". And whether you like
it or not, we'll continue to do so with or without you. It's the
nature of NOTES.
-Ellen
|
| 165.15 | know thyself... not thine statistics | KALKIN::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Jan 15 1987 10:12 | 22 |
| .12, etc: certainly, "knowing yourself" is a prerequisite
to understanding your potential and making it the most of
it. But knowing a theory about the statistical characteristics
of the generic concept "woman", or "man", or "black", even
if the theory is true---even if it's been *proven*
true---doesn't help you know yourself.
Everyone's different from everyone else. Even if men *are*
"more likely" to excell in math, it's quite clear that many
women excell in math. She will benefit only from personal
experience and the knowledge that *she* excells in math...
not from a generic theory that she, statistically, "shouldn't"
do so.
Even if true, this theory does no good for anyone... each person
must still explore his or her own personal strengths and
weaknesses. If the theory is true, it would be only an
interesting piece of information, like the value of pi to 5
million digits, which has absolutely no bearing on ordinary
life.
/dave
|
| 165.16 | further reading | BARTOK::MEEHAN | | Thu Jan 15 1987 11:34 | 20 |
|
I can make a recommendation for reading on this subject. It is a book
written by Ruth Blier, M.D. called "Science and Gender". She very
thoroughly describes the brain and its function and proves that grey matter
is grey matter and that there is nothing in the structure or function of
womens' brains that makes them any different from men.
She concentrates on debunking the theories of the branch of science called
Sociobiology, which promotes the idea that the lot in life of men and women
is based on their genetic makeup. Men are born agressive and worldly while
women are born passive and nurturing. These genetic predispositions
naturally allow men to run the world and women to stay barefoot, pregnant
and in the kitchen.
This book is very dense reading (I have only read half of it) and most
definitely written with a feminist perspective. Still, I applaud her
tenacity and am glad that there are people in the scientific community that
are not letting a group of scientists create a pseudo-science that supports
repression of women.
|
| 165.17 | I can accept that.......... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Jan 15 1987 11:41 | 15 |
| RE: .14
You're right not to worry about whether or
not *I* will like what you do in NOTES. What is
offensive to me may be quite desirable to you.
(And vice versa.) We are all unique individuals
with our own point of view.
Being women does not mean we will agree on
everything (or anything.) Nor should we try (in
all cases.) No problem.
Suzanne...
|
| 165.18 | Not to Hit and Run | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Thu Jan 15 1987 12:12 | 39 |
| I entered .0, my intent was constructive, honest. Clearly, not all
of you think so and this has given me feelings of "what have I
done?". Allow me to try to put this into perspective. I really
hope that this helps, i know it's a risk, and ask your understanding
(maybe sympathy) in my attempt. I may be a fool to even try to do
this.
Some of you seem to question even the freedom of thought (as well as
speech) involved here. Please question the implications:
Please, we must not attempt to curb human thought or the attempt to
theorize and find answers (and you must create [unproven] theories
before you get even tentative answers). Don't you see how dangerous
that is. All the stuff about curing and eliminating disease, and
learning about ourselves is involved in this same question
concerning brain and behavioral differences.
For years the earth was flat and the center of the universe because
it was deemed necessary for "higher purposes". Knowing the truth,
even allowing ourselves to question and learn the truth, is
necessary for any real human progress and understanding. And once
we learn the truth, we must always allow ourselves to find out that
we were wrong, that the truth is some other truth.
I honestly believe that allowing ourselves to question is of
paramount importance to women and to the human race. Look at the
general mindset in areas of the world where women are most
repressed -- people can not even question the way things are.
What we may find is that we are different, at least in tendencies.
Not superior or inferior as human beings, just different.
The important part is then in using the knowledge of those
differences in the many positive ways -- to learn to
constructively value and apply that knowledge.
And to value the differences!
Mike
|
| 165.19 | Another Point of View | TOPDOC::STANTON | I got a gal in Kalamazoo | Thu Jan 15 1987 23:29 | 80 |
|
Off the hormonal/right-left brain/sociobiology tact for a
momement..
I read an interesting theory about the roots of sexism 3 or 4 years
aogo in the NY Times Magazine. I don't know if I believe it but it is
an intriguing theory based on the hypothesis that the roots of sexism
are based on ancient/primitive birth control, as follows:
A healthy woman can have, on average, about 15 to 20 children in her
lifetime. Even with a high mortality rate in infancy and beyond,
anywhere from 4 to 6 children may survive. If we also assume a 1:1
ratio between girls and boys, each mother produces at least 2 girls
who have a good chance of surviving & reproducing.
According to the author, this fertility could have a terrible effect on
an ancient society in just a few generations. Some of these societies
had just discovered the basics of agriculture, but most were largely
dependent on nomadic hunting/gathering. As the society grows out of
control, it becomes impossible to feed everyone.
The author hypothesizes that women were "blamed" for their fertility,
and as a result subjected and oppressed. The value and status of the
"man child" was elevated to paramount importance. Having too many
daughters was a disgrace. Women were reduced to property, and could
therefore be treated badly, but for reasons that, at the time, seemed
logical: too many women in the tribe would increase the population,
etc.
The status of the "man child" was elevated because they were expendable
and they did not reproduce. Expendable because in the worst case, only
one or two men (chiefs) were needed to start up a new generation. Men
underwent tests and puberty rituals to prove their worthiness. They
were sent into the jungles to hunt, and sometimes to war, with the
understanding that they might die at any time. Why did they go? Their
"reward" was a woman. Men earned the right to have a woman through
combat with man & beast, which reduced the male side of the population.
The available women had to have a dowery. This "value-added" token
further demonstrated that the the woman, by herself, was not what was
really valuable. Marriages were arranged by chiefs, and later by
parents, in very formal, organized ways that asured that only those men
who had proved themselves could have access to a woman, and children.
Body paint, scarring, tattoos, and other ornaments enhanced the
"packaging" of the woman for the man. She was "presented" or "given
away" by one man to another.
Unmarried or infertile women were kept working in the fields, gathering
water, cooking, cleaning, and so on, performing the necessary support
tasks for the society in a capacity that was little more than slavery.
Despite the need to keep the population down, these women were regarded
as even more inferior than their wedded counterparts.
Once wed, the woman belonged to the man to do with as he pleased.
Tabboos against rape and audultery have their root not in violence
against women, but in the violation of another man's property. Women
were not allowed to go too far afield anymore than one allows a
domestic animal to roam without a tether.
Even in times of war, women kept "the home fire burning," To this day
most societies do not allow women in combat. We say a job is "too
dangerous," or "too hard" for a woman, and we also say a woman's
"place" is at home (ie not roaming the jungles).
* * * * *
As the centuries rolled by, this subjegation became less a matter
of birth control & more a matter of custom. If we look at many of
the rituals, beliefs, customs, and prejudices we hold today, there
are curious parallels that are hard to ignore.
I cannot wonder if we keep trying to explain sexism by claiming there
are differences in brain orientation, hormonal level, body mass, etc.,
when in all boils down to one big difference, that women can have
children and men cannot, & that after 10000 years neither men or women
have got much beyond this basic fact/mystery/miracle/what you will.
Maybe we are still in awe?
|
| 165.20 | re .19 | CADSYS::RICHARDSON | | Fri Jan 16 1987 13:29 | 8 |
| Primitive peoples did not realize that the population increase wouldn't
happen without the men. There may be something to this theory,
but the excuse of ignorance is long gone when we are talking about
the position of women in today's societies.
I have heard a somewhat similar theory that menstruation was looked
upon with awe and dread in primitive societies (rather than as a
nuisance, today).
|
| 165.21 | Part of a larger problem | EMIRFI::CAMBER | | Fri Jan 16 1987 15:59 | 35 |
|
I realize that the title of the note is about sexism, but I
feel that sexism is just one element of a total called "prejudice".
I don't have to try not to be prejudiced, I'm just not.
It doesn't mean my mind isn't cluttered up with stereotypes,
because it definitely is - things you hear stick with you, for
instance: My father grew up next to a large Portuguese community
and always spoke poorly of them as a people; my grandmother hated
Catholics and shuddered at the thought of associating with one
(I married a Catholic); Blacks are lazy and thieves; Puerto Ricans
are shiftless; Men are lechers; Women are housewives and secretaries;
etc., etc., etc.
Until we as human beings can think of each other as individuals,
we'll continue to focus on the separate elements of prejudice,
such as sexism, and never come to a solution. Sexism is just one
sympton of a much larger problem. Focusing on just that one sympton
only blurs the rest, and draws us further away from any viable
conclusions.
Each PERSON is different. It really worries me to see a topic
such as "sexism" separated out from the "prejudice" family, because
that in itself promotes separatism; when it is the entire PREJUDICE
issue which is the real problem.
I realize that each element of a problem must addressed in order
to affect a solution for the entire problem. But, it seems to me
that more and more these elements are being harbored and nurtured as
forever-individual entities, as opposed to being addressed with the
intention of linking them back together again for the purpose of
solving the larger problem.
|
| 165.22 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Simplicity is Elegance | Fri Jan 16 1987 17:57 | 18 |
| re -1:
If you wish to enter a topic on prejudice, do so. But be informed
that a topic on "prejudice" is not as pertinent to this topic as
"sexism".
I'm sorry you feel problem of sexism is trival just because we're
not talking about prejudice in general. Let me tell you, it is
*not* trivial to a lot of us in this conference! I do not *personally*
experience prejudice against me expressed as racism or religious
or political oppression or because of my ethnic heritage, but I *do*
experience it as expressed as sexism. Although sexism is no more
reprehensible than racism, I cannot speak from experience there,
nor can a lot of women in this conference.
BTW, you did not sign your name, but I'll bet you are a male.
-Ellen
|
| 165.23 | Part of a larger problem | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | It is a time to remember | Fri Jan 16 1987 17:58 | 7 |
| Re: .21
I was going to write a similar note tonight but I wanted to read
the description of sexism in the dictionary. I don't have to
this reply is well said.
Joyce
|
| 165.24 | Sorry if I misled | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Fri Jan 16 1987 19:19 | 81 |
| As I have said off line, I'm greatly saddened in particular to
have said anything which discomfited Suzanne, although given
you earlier reply in this topic, I feared that I might. Please
allow me to apologize publicly to you and to anyone else who was
disturbed by what I said in 165.7.
I think there are two misconceptions that cause my not to seem
more offensive than I had intended it. The first is the
distinction between difference and superiority/inferiority. I
certainly don't find it at all like that women are "genetically
inferior to men" in terms of math or anything else. It does
seem quite likely to me that there may be behavioral differences
between the sexes which are physiologically based. This is an
important distinction.
I am, no doubt, seriously to blame for the blurring of the
distinction in my note. While I was talking about the
disadvantages of denying realities about oneself, I used myself
as an example. (It is, in general safer, to do that as that's one
person you are not likely to offend unintentionally.) Of course,
the distinction I spoke of was one that is normally considered a
disability. It would have been immodest to speak about some
aspect in which I excel. By speaking in terms of a disability, I
implied a sense of inferiority that may have carried over to the
impression I was speaking of women as inferior.
What I should have made clearer is that it has been my
impression having observed a number of people with so-called
"learning disabilities", that what we really have is a "teaching
disability" on the part of our schools and society. I have come
to think that different people think, perceive, and learn
differently. Our culture is centered around one particular style
of teaching and reasoning that works very well for some and very
badly for others, others who could excel in another environment.
Those note suited to the style in vogue are considered
defective. In fact, what they are, I feel is different.
If statistically the average way that women reason or approach
the world is a bit different than the way that men reason, this
in no wise implies that either is "genetically inferior". In
fact, I'm hard pressed to be quite sure what "genetically
inferior" means, exclusive perhaps of gross birth defects. Are
we "genetically inferior" or "genetically superior" to horses?
We're significantly smarter, but they're faster. Which is more
important? Seems to me that we're different.
The second misconception is much more minor, but as several
people have mentioned it, I shall as well. Several notes talked
about hairiness in conjunction with the finding that high levels
of male hormones at a certain point in fetal development appears
to correlate with migraines and later success in math. The two
are completely unrelated (so far as I know).
The finding wasn't that the amount of male hormones in an adult
(which affects things like the secondary sex characteristic of
body hair) was correlated with math and that therefore if you
were good at math you'd have to be big and hairy (and all the
other secondary characteristics associated with male hormones).
It was merely that an exceptionally high level of male hormones
at one point in *fetal* *development* correlated with later
success in math. Just because it is high at that one point is no
reason why it will be high later in life after the child is
born. Among other things it can be the mother's body that
produced the high level. Also high levels of some hormones at
certain points of fetal development can cause deficiencies in
later life.
The point is that regardless of whether you are attempting to
apply the knowledge gained in a scientific experiment or trying
to disprove it, you must be very careful to not extrapolate
wildly beyond the actual findings. The particular finding is
merely an indication of what one of the many factors on the
nature side of the nature/nurture complex that affects
mathematical ability might be. In fact it says much more about
the possibility that the mathematically gifted are more likely
to suffer from migraines than it does about how women should
choose careers.
I'm terribly sorry if I gave the wrong impressions.
JimB.
|
| 165.25 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Jan 16 1987 19:30 | 77 |
| RE: .22
The author of .21 is named Susan (which sounds
female to me.)
Sounds to me like you read the note and relied
upon your OWN sexual stereotypes (based on the wording
and on the opinion presented, which by the way said
NOTHING about sexism being trivial) and decided that
you could predict the sex of the author without check-
ing ELF.
Maybe you feel that women are incapable of being
prejudiced (that it is a "man's fault" or a "man's
value") -- I think we just saw an excellent example of
a form of prejudice in your note.
Makes me wonder if you would have assumed the same
thing about *my* notes had I not signed them. (Because
I happen to agree with .21 about sexism being part of
the bigger problem of prejudice.) That doesn't make it
less trivial -- just easier to understand (since most
of us are "aware" enough of racial prejudice to relate
to the similarities.)
I also agree with .21 about seeing people as indi-
viduals. There isn't a woman in this conference that
fits every single female stereotype (that I can see.)
We're all different and unique. So what's the point of
trying to pretend that "women are one way" and "men are
another way" (even if you happen to think that "men do
all the bad things in the world" and "women do the only
good things in the world" -- if that is indeed what you
think.)
Even positive sexual stereotypes are bad for us (if
it means that people stop seeing THE PERSON in favor of
pre-determined prejudices about THE GROUP.)
And Mike (.0 & .18, I think), as to your feelings
that we will be "helped" by believing that our brains
(as men and women) are suited to different types of
activities, I have yet to see you explain exactly how
that knowledge will help us. (Unless you feel that men
would be helped in child custody cases to be kept from
custody because their "brains" are not genetically pre-
disposed to nurturing. Do you feel that high school
girls would be encouraged to take math if you stood before
them to say, "Your brains are not genetically designed
to do math, but try it anyway. We men are nice guys and
want to pay you the same wage, in spite of your brains.")
If none of the so called "women's qualities" apply
to ALL of the women who write in this conference (which
is a microscopic portion of the world's population of
women), then what do you suppose the odds are that these
"qualities" apply to the ~2 billion women who occupy our
planet?
There are certain "averages" that can be seen in
terms of body mass, and height (and of course, there are
differences in male and female bodies in their sexual/
reproductive systems.) That's a very small part of the
entire ENTITY of a human being (and has nothing to do
with brains/personalities/values except for what has been
foisted upon all of us by our culture.)
We will never break down the sexual barriers until
we can STOP creating new ones. It doesn't mean just
"accepting" so-called men's values (and the world the
way men supposedly ran it before we started approaching
equality.) It means realizing that we are *ALL* responsi-
ble now and can't even BEGIN to face the problems in the
world until we accept each other as human beings (as the
unique individuals that EACH ONE of us *IS*!!)
Suzanne
|
| 165.26 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Jan 16 1987 19:46 | 41 |
| RE: .24
Your reply slipped in one minute or so before
my .25 (so I just read it.)
I'm sure that I carried your earlier arguments
a mile farthur than you intended them (and did so to
make a point of what a dangerous direction I felt the
arguments to be leading.)
I do see what you were trying to say and I really
appreciate your giving an explanation (after I jumped
on your note so mercilessly.) :-}
As for averages of "female behavior" and averages
of "male behavior," they certainly exist (the AVERAGES,
that is.) There are statistical averages in almost
every direction we'd care to pursue about ANY ASPECT of
human behavior.
It's what we *DO* with the averages (and how much
credence we give them.) They can be mildly interesting
to look at, but should not affect how we perceive
INDIVIDUAL PERSONS.
As a person myself, I would like people to see me
as my unique self (and *NOT* make assumptions about me
based on my sex.)
I dislike having *POSITIVE* assumptions made about
me (based on my sex) as well as negative. I don't see
a big difference between the two -- they both help to
drown out my particular INDIVIDUALITY. That's what I'm
objecting to, in particular.
Thanks again for your explanation -- I didn't mean
to attack you (or even the range of ideas as expressed
in your note.) It was the direction of the ideas.
Take care, JimB!
Suzanne...
|
| 165.27 | So what is the Truth? | INFACT::GREENBERG | | Fri Jan 16 1987 19:48 | 36 |
| I don't know that there are "differences" between the sexes that
are determined from birth, and I claim that you don't either. Even
more important neither you nor anyone else knows what there are
if they do exist.
When I was very young, I used to like to do a lot of "boy" things.
(Even though I was a girl) Some I was allowed to do, some I wasn't,
because I was a girl. This varied from being discouraged from certain
activities to being barred completely.
When I got older, say high school aged, I wised up and quit doing
the "boy" things that I like to do (sports, math, science, mechanics,
etc) and tried to get interested in more of the "girl" things that I was
supposed to do. Some I liked, some I didn't. However, the end result
was that I didn't really ever feel like I fit in and I wasn't even
doing the things I did like and was good at. Believe it or not
this even happens to boys.
When I got older, say college or later, I wised up some more.
Somewhere I found out that nobody knew what I supposed to be.
I started working on figuring it out for myself and on trying not
to make assumptions of others. This is much easier said than done.
The society I live in is still trying to tell me what I am based
on my sex. It is telling my daughters what they are, what they
can do and what they are interested in. Society will get much more
from my very bright daughters if it gives them a chance to figure
it out for themselves.
You will never stereo-type without causing discrimination. Most
people in this country seem to understand that much better in regard
to racial stereo-typing than sexual stereo-typing. What you will
Society is still telling me what to be, society is still
|
| 165.28 | Knowledge will set you ... | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Mon Jan 19 1987 07:27 | 8 |
| Sexual uniquiness, if it exists (left/right brain usage by one
sex and whole brain usage by another, corrrelation between ability
with a specific art or science and gender, etc.), should be studied
and understood for its potential benefits. NOVA (channel 2 in Boston)
a few nights ago devoted an hour to embryonic (sp?) development.
I suggest this program should be mandatory for anyone who doesn't
understand the importance of understanding as much as possible about
development.
|
| 165.29 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Jan 19 1987 08:26 | 18 |
| RE: .28
As far as I know, the studies on brain usage have
not yet made a case for sexual uniqueness in terms of
correlation between abilities (in specific arts and
sciences) and gender. It's one thing to say that certain
parts of the brain are being used (et al) but it is quite
an unfounded LEAP in logic to suggest that male and female
brains are genetically designed for males to do one set
of cognitive functions and females another.
The sexual uniqueness that you speak of (if it does
exist, as you say) will not be proven until they find an
art or a science that is exclusive to one sex or the other.
It's dangerous to assume more than the studies
themselves actually state.
Suzanne
|
| 165.30 | Black colored glasses? | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Mon Jan 19 1987 08:41 | 11 |
| Suzanne:
Please read my response. It neither suggests nor implies there
is any difference between men and women. It does state my opinion
that every effort should be made to understand any difference which
is qualified. If woman and men use their brains differently we
should expend the effort necessary to undersatnd why, regardless
of the outcome. (I don't know that women and men use their brains
differently. I don't know there is any difference between women
and men, except reproductive.) You have seen that which does not
exist.
|
| 165.31 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Jan 19 1987 09:02 | 27 |
| RE: .30
> Sexual uniquiness, if it exists (left/right brain usage by one
> sex and whole brain usage by another, corrrelation between ability
> with a specific art or science and gender, etc.), should be studied
I quoted what you said almost word for word (from memory)
about the fact that you did say "if it exists" -- all I stated
was the fact that the studies have not yet shown "correlation
between ability with a specific art or science and gender, etc."
(since you specifically brought it up as possibly existing.)
The basenote of this topic clearly suggests exactly that
(the correlation between specific brain functions and gender.)
I said it is a leap in logic to make that suggestion (I didn't
say that *you* made that leap yourself.)
I addressed it because you specifically brought it up in the
above quote. Reread .28 and .29 (I don't think I misrepresented
you.) I was trying to make the point that there is a big dis-
tinction between the studies of brain usage and the actual level
of abilities that each sex is given as a function of gender.
(Since you lumped the two together in the same sentence, I felt
it necessary to bring it up.) I wasn't attacking you.
Suzanne
|
| 165.32 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Jan 19 1987 09:36 | 23 |
| RE: .30
By the way, my brother is a true mathematical
genius (got an 800 on his SAT's in Math and now has a
PhD in Physics). I always felt that if he ever had a
child, he would pass his mathematical ability on to his
offspring.
I was right. His DAUGHTER is a mathematical genius
(she was able to perform algebraic and trigonometric functions
at the age of 7.)
It *could* have worked out differently -- a son *OR*
a daughter could have been born with no math ability.
There's no proven, simplistic answer as to why this
happens. I would hope that none of us would jump to any
conclusions prematurely (not to suggest that YOU are doing
so.)
Suzanne
|
| 165.33 | Quantifying Differences | DYO780::AXTELL | Dragon Lady | Mon Jan 26 1987 13:11 | 19 |
| This is late, but I couldn't resist.
Proving that there are inherent biological differences was a pet
topic of a founding member of our *tekkie* community. Does anybody
remember Shottky (of TTL fame) conducting a study on the way black
and white people think? Personally I find the whole pseudo-science
of sociobiology to be an embarassment, and the Shottky study
particularly so.
Assuming that there are demonstrable differences in the abilitys
and apptitudes of men and wimmin, I don't see any way to categorically
define them as biological or societal. I also don't see any way
of determining which is better, short of electing an earthbound
god. This discussion has added another dimension to the concept
of valuing differences.
|
| 165.34 | Right semiconductor, wrong name | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Mon Jan 26 1987 13:27 | 6 |
| Re: .33
That was Shockley (a co-inventor of the transistor), not
Schottky, who has voiced opinions of inherent intelilgence
differences between races.
Steve
|
| 165.35 | oops | DYO780::AXTELL | Dragon Lady | Mon Jan 26 1987 14:47 | 3 |
| You're right... Temporary malfunction of the auto-pilot. Probably
due to input buffer overload....
|
| 165.36 | why "wimmin"? | CELICA::QUIRIY | Christine | Mon Jan 26 1987 15:22 | 5 |
|
Re: .33 "Dragon Lady", I don't mean to single you out, as I've seen others
do it but don't remember who they are, but why do you write "wimmin"?
CQ
|
| 165.37 | that's Ms. Dragon Lady to you :>) | DYO780::AXTELL | Dragon Lady | Mon Jan 26 1987 15:57 | 16 |
| The word *woman* is derived from old english/middle english terms
for wife and man. In addition to the *adult female* definition, Websters
has several other interpretations that might be of interest including
female servant or pesonal attendant. Wife, of course, is a married
woman.
Along with eliminating the use of masculine terms when refering
to non-gender specific entities, a lot of feminists didn't/don't
appreciate a label which indicates that the have no identity without
a link to a man. So we adopted the alternative spelling. A completely
new word was out of the question. Common english usage can only take
so much change at one time.
Pretty much it's just a personal preference.
|
| 165.38 | Statistics are for stones | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Jan 26 1987 17:14 | 24 |
| I was reading an essay by Carl Jung the other day... [He was
talking about how despotism starts.]
He gave a very nice gestalt about generalizations, using a pile
of pebbles. He said that it would be useful to know that the
average weight of a pebble in the pile was 145 grams; it told you
things about the pebbles. He then warned that it did not mean
that the first pebble you picked up would weigh 145 grams; in
fact, it was possible that NOT ONE of the pebbles would weigh
exactly 145 grams.
From this, he explained that, from a (say) medical vantage, it
was fine to make generalizations about masses of people, BUT that
from a psycho-analytic vantage, he found that he *had to* forget
every generalization he knew, because for any given individual,
they could all be false.
This is the situation I think we face. You can make all the
truthful generalizations you like, but the instant you attempt
to apply even one of them to any individual in the world, you are
likely to fall flat on your face. And the only people anyone
ever deals with are individuals.
Ann B.
|
| 165.39 | womyn, too. | ESPN::HENDRICKS | Holly | Tue Jan 27 1987 09:13 | 8 |
| I've also seen womyn (singular) and wimmin (plural). That sure
would have helped me back in fourth grade when I was trying to decode
women and woman phonetically! I would vote for making the change
permanent, myself...
I guess I tend to use the old spellings in writing, but I often
"think" the alternative spellings in my head as I speak, if that
makes any sense.
|
| 165.40 | Well done .38 | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Tue Jan 27 1987 11:28 | 7 |
| Re: .38
Excellent note. In a few short sentences you managed to justify
the use of generalizations while properly explaining how
generalizations should be used. Well done!
Douglas
|
| 165.41 | huh? | MRMFG1::R_BURTON | | Tue Jan 27 1987 13:22 | 29 |
|
RE:165.1,4A few years back my brother showed me an article from
some medical journal about an experiment in India proving men could
indeed breastfeed. With the proper stimulation (according to the
article) men would actually lactate. At the time I was shown this
my wife was nursing our second son and she thought this was hilarious.
She made tons of jokes about me getting up in the morning to shave
my chest then setting down in the rocker and nursing Josh.
I have no idea whether this is really true and don't even know where
to look for this article. (My brother spends a lot of time out of
the country. Can't ask him)
I never did try to prove/disprove this on my own either. Marie
did just fine on her own. All three sons were chubby, happy babies.
The psychologist that we had our oldest evaluated for a learning
disability told Marie and I that there are some devolpemental
differences between boys and girls. In the first 18 months girls
tend to be quicker with language oriented skills and boys quicker
with motor skills ie, hand-eye co-ordination. These tend to even
out by about three to four years old though.
Seems like there aren't too many differences between the sexes.
For any of you out there just dying to find some, you'll just have
to look a little harder. Or make up a few, that's always good for
an argument.
Rob
|
| 165.42 | AN ANALOGY | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Mon Feb 23 1987 12:29 | 30 |
| Am the writer of the base note (and .18).
Just read in "Psychology Today" magazine that another study has been
completed concerning the link between IQ and height.
It shows that taller people, in general, have a higher IQ than
shorter people.
Should this information be repressed? I don't think so.
I wonder if this fact will withstand the test of more testing.
But assuming it withstands the test of time:
I wonder why this is the case. I wonder if other physical or mental
or emotional characteristics might be linked here. I wonder if,
some day, this knowledge will be refined to the point where true
positives may emerge for all individuals. I wonder what other
genetic links may be found which relate this to other areas. I
wonder what I might learn about myself as a further result. I
wonder about the implications that I haven't wondered about.
And yes, I very much hope that no one judges me as an individual,
based on this generalization.
But I don't think that this information should be repressed.
For doing so would result in many negatives, covering many domains,
far into the future.
~Mike, who is 5 feet 4 1/2 inches tall.
|
| 165.43 | ? | YAZOO::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Mon Feb 23 1987 12:41 | 9 |
| The only study I had ever seen that showed links between IQ and
height were those in areas where there was serious malnutrition.
The short, lower I.Q. individuals had also much poorer nutrition
than the taller higher I.Q. individuals.
Bonnie
who is 5' and 3/4" and does perfectly fine on those tests thankyou
:-)
|
| 165.44 | Women & Language | SHIRE::MAURER | Energy begets energy. | Tue Feb 24 1987 06:36 | 17 |
| Re: .37, .39
I understand the desire to break away from enforced nomenclature,
but womyn/wimmin look like caricatures to me. As a matter of
aesthetics, I don't use them.
As many a British "Private Eye" reader can tell you, *wimmin*
is already being used in a derogatory manner (as in "loony feminist
nonsense".) I don't know if this came about after its coinage as
a feminist word or not, but I do find it more than vaguely insulting.
It is distressing that Webster's includes outmoded definitions for
*woman*. Do they at least note that these are obsolete or would
they have us believe otherwise? I wonder if the compilers can't be
persuaded that we don't like being defined as female servants or
personal attendants.
|
| 165.45 | {RE .7 & .37} | VAXUUM::DYER | Days of Miracle and Wonder | Fri Mar 13 1987 19:59 | 15 |
| {RE .7} - A "correlation between the fetal level of male hormones and later
mathematical ability" doesn't exclude the effects of environment. That women's
brains usually (it's not universal) develop greater left-brain/right-brain
co�rdination than men's doesn't exclude the effects of environment. Dyslexia
may have environmental predecessors.
In short, physiological differences do not necessarily indicate *inherent*
differences. That's often overlooked.
{RE .37} - Your etymology of "woman" is off the mark. It used to be that "man"
meant person (long, long ago - it certainly isn't true anymore, despite what
English teachers say), "werman" meant male person, and "wifman" meant female
person. Both "wife" and "woman" were derived from "wifman." The "-man"
suffix of "woman" doesn't mean male person, it means person.
<_Jym_>
|
| 165.46 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Sat Mar 14 1987 14:58 | 15 |
|
.44:
"wimmin" as a derogatory reference to women in English humor is *very*
old - I have 19th century picture postcards that use it that way, and
it is probably older.
The connotation is that it is the phonetic spelling of the common northern
pronunciation of the word, and northern men have long been known for
their attitude to "their" women. (viz the Andy Capp cartoons and the
attitude of all the male characters to the female ones).
/. Ian .\
(a geordie)
|
| 165.47 | separate, therefore equal? | DYO780::AXTELL | Dragon Lady | Wed Mar 18 1987 14:44 | 24 |
| re .45:
Regretably Meriam Webster disagrees with you on the derivation of
woman. Woman was derived from Middle English from Old English
wifman. So far, so good. Where we differ is in the derivation
of wifman. Meriam seems to feel that wifman was derived from
wif (meaning woman AND wife - what's one without the other?) and
man (meaning human being AND man). Now what do I call myself if
I am a woman and a human being, but am not a wife.
I disagree with the implication that the term woman is not sexist.
The derivation of the word implies that a woman's existance is
defined by her connection to a man. Perhaps you haven't noticed
but this attitude is not restricted to a bunch of dead Anlgo Saxons.
This is still a prevelant attitude in our society and I see it as
contributing to the oppression of wimmin in much the same way as
racial slang contributes to the oppression of various minority
groups.
I wish I could put I smile on this and have the whole issue of
language become unimportant. Unfortunately language is one of the
most powerful tools we have, and its unintentional misuse has
caused a great deal of pain for a great many people.
|
| 165.48 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Thu Mar 19 1987 15:07 | 39 |
| re .47: Now what do I call myself if I am a woman and a human being,
� but am not a wife.
That is I trust a rhetorical question. As you observe the English
language does not provide a word to carry the meaning of "married
female", nor does it have one for "married male". This is apparently
because until recently it was axiomatic that an englishwoman who
was neither to young to be married, nor widowed would most probably
be married. The generic words ("woman" and "man") hence carry the
second (implicit) meaning of "married"
There are perfectly good words in the english language however for
all other states of life.
Thus:
state female male
===== ====== ====
too young to marry girl boy
unmarried spinster batchelor
married woman man
divorced divorc�e divorc�
widowed widow widower
Of course since England has a state religion that until recently
precluded divorce the word for the divorced state is actually french.
Equally if you object to the use of the word woman, you are quite
free to object to the use of the other words: they are however
appropriate for the states they describe, and there is no state
not so described.
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.49 | Bachelor vs Spinster by connotation alone | HPSCAD::TWEXLER | | Thu Mar 19 1987 17:03 | 14 |
| Re .48
True that the language does have words that refer to women and men
married and unmarried, however, in America, at least, spinster carries
the connotation of an 'old maid', ie, a female person who (wanted
to get married but) never married and the word has a negative
connotation. The word bachelor is associated with the phrase 'free
man', ie, a man who is not tied to a woman and the word has a positive
connotation. Recently, bachelor has been used to refer to single
men and women of marriagable age who are enjoying NOT being married.
(Note that bachelorette is also in use for those who prefer the
flavor of 'lady' instead of 'woman')
Tamar
|
| 165.50 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Thu Mar 19 1987 17:42 | 29 |
|
I can't speak for other religions but: the Church of England still requires
that couples wanting to marry post the banns on the church noticeboard
n weeks before the marriage (civil ceremonies have a similar requirement
and church weddings other than CoE are not legally valid in Britain
so I suppose that gets everybody!) - admittedly usually these days the
noticeboard used is not always in a public place.
Anyway back to the point: there is a standard wording that goes something
like "Jane Doe, Spinster of the Parish of Westhoughton, and John Doe
Batchelor of this parish". These phrases are familiar enough in everyday
usage that the "Old Maid" connotation, though present, is by no means
all pervasive in Britain.
Still I do find "batchelorette" cute (I just couldn't find it in my
dictionary! :-). Frankly my old English master beat into me a total
loathing of neologisms when there are existing words of the same meaning:
I can still remember him saying "the English language already contains
more words than any other language and it doesn't need comic book words
when perfectly good ones are growing dusty through disuse" (he said
it with a rhythmic cadence as he delivered the caning associated with
the offense).
====
Of course there is also the unisex word for a person who has lost their
partner: relict. (Sounds awful doesn't it?)
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.51 | | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Thu Mar 19 1987 17:47 | 18 |
| RE: .48
I prefer:
state female male
===== ====== ====
too young to marry girl/child boy/child
unmarried single single
married married married
divorced single/divorced single/divorced
widowed single/widowed single/widowed
And all states can refer to people as woman/man.
|
| 165.52 | What's "appropriate"? | DINER::SHUBIN | Go ahead - make my lunch! | Thu Mar 19 1987 18:00 | 21 |
| re: .48 (Ian)
(if we continue this, it should be moved the topic called "words count", or
whatever it is).
Equally if you object to the use of the word woman, you are quite
free to object to the use of the other words: they are however
appropriate for the states they describe, and there is no state
not so described.
They're only "appropriate" if one thinks that they are. Others in
this conference discussed the appropriateness of the words "spinster" and
"woman"; if they think the words are unfair, incorrect, or too "loaded" in
some other way, then they're *not* appropriate.
Also (and much more picky), there's "no state not so described" only because
you're biased toward our culture, where we are only concerned with the
concepts that you've named. There are many other states, but they're not
particularly important to us, so we ignore them. (Similarly, some cultures
count more simply: "one, two, LotsMore".)
-- hs
|
| 165.53 | get hip with today's English | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Thu Mar 19 1987 18:31 | 18 |
| re .50:
I could not find the word "relict" in my dictionary. Did you
mean "relic"?
Also, this bit about your schoolmaster - did I read you right that
he is insisting that you use only currently existing words? If
so, Karen's reply (.51) did not "make up" any new words.
And as far as "not making up new words for things", come on! Have
some fun. A language is a living spoken expression that expresses
the times in which it is used. No one goes around saying "thee, thou,
and milord" any more. Get hip with today's English.
Besides, does that mean we shouldn't use "new" words like monosodium
glutamate (a bad example, but you get my drift).
-Ellen
|
| 165.54 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Thu Mar 19 1987 19:04 | 32 |
|
- No I really meant relict (with a t) but probably the only dictionary
you'll find it in is a legal dictionary. (or the Complete Oxford English
Dictionary)
- I consider batchelorette to be a neologism: it really isn't in my
dictionary.
===
Closer to the subject - I remember being taught in etiquette class the
following that people may care to comment on.
(In English law and correct court protocol)
A woman has been married: her husband's name was John Smith and her maiden
name was Jane Brown.
Q1: What is the (legally) correct style of address after she is divorced?
Q2: What is the (legally) correct style of address after she is widowed?
A1: Mrs. Jane Smith
A2: Mrs. John Smith
(I'm not talking about chosen address styles - I am talking about legal
styles: ie if you get a letter from the probate court it *should* legally
be addressed as in A2)
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.55 | sort of sums it up | SUPER::HENDRICKS | | Fri Mar 20 1987 07:03 | 3 |
| re .51
Well put, Karen!
|
| 165.56 | pax? | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Fri Mar 20 1987 11:05 | 35 |
|
re .51 and others:
well my list was all nouns. regardless of connotation you can
say "a spinster", "a divorc�e" or "a widow" or even "a relict". The
words in the list in .51 are not: you cannot in reasonable grammar say
"a single", "a married" etc. (I know the grotesquerie of "singles" as
a noun is with us, but I surely can find that as distasteful as some
readers find "spinster").
My dictionary (Webster's 3rd International edition [unabridged]) lists
several difinitions of "relict" including the one I cited. However in
case nobody noticed I used an archaic word deliberately as a satirical
reply to the use of the awful neologism in an earlier note.
Neither Webster's nor the Oxford English dictionary list "bachelorette"
but Webster's definition of "bachelor" includes the following gender
free definition
bachelor: 3a an unmarried person of marriageable age.
<remained a ~ for 7 years after the death of his wife>
<a ~ girl>
Hence bachelorette is not only a neologism, but it provides a word for
a meaning and sense that already has one: precisely what my schoolmaster
used to complain of. It is a redundant apendage to the language.
As for the remark in an earlier note that I should "get hip to modern
English" may I remind you that it would be more accurate to say "get
hip to modern American usage of the English language".
Now let's get back to the topic (further flames by mail will be responded
to in time).
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.58 | Not completely gender free | HPSCAD::TWEXLER | | Fri Mar 20 1987 12:42 | 16 |
| RE .54
Ian, your little description of how a woman is required to be
addressed by English law demonstrates just how sexist English law
can stoop to be. Granted there are women (and this is THEIR CHOICE)
who decide to be referred to only in terms of their husband's name,
ie Mrs. John Smith, but to have no choice granted... How horrible.
Also, while bachelor may be defined as a single person in your
dictionary, it is only defined as a single man in my dictionary.
(Though I know bachelor is currently being used to refer to male
and female singles (sorry whoever objected to the word, but an
acceptable genderless word referring to single people was needed
and bachelor is still (obviously) not accepted as genderless))
Tamar
|
| 165.59 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Fri Mar 20 1987 13:51 | 24 |
| � Ian, your little description of how a woman is required to be
� addressed by English law demonstrates just how sexist English law
� can stoop to be.
It was meant to demonstrate that. It leads to such absurdities as
the fact that Prince Michael of Kent's wife is addressed as "Princess
Michael of Kent"!
� Also, while bachelor may be defined as a single person in your
� dictionary, it is only defined as a single man in my dictionary.
Well it surprised me really: I was looking for bachelorette and
when I didn't find it I read bachelor. The phrase "bachelor girl"
that Webster's cites as an example sounds condescending to me, after
all I'm a bachelor, but wouldn't care to be called a "bachelor boy".
However I have been told that "Webster's" is considered the "standard"
American dictionary, as the "Complete Oxford" is the standard English
dictionary. The problem with standard dictionaries is that they
produce so many definitions it is impossible to select the appropriate
one in many cases.
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.60 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Mar 20 1987 14:58 | 10 |
| "Relict" does appear in the "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" we
have in our group. The meaning relating to a widow is denoted "rare".
Note that any dictionary can call itself "Webster's" in the U.S.
The one I found was published by Simon and Schuster. The dictionary
publishers we tend to think of as the "official" Webster's is
Merriam-Webster. It is usually their unabridged dictionaries that
are considered the standard reference for American English.
Steve
|
| 165.61 | Where is the problem? | LYMPH::DICKSON | Network Design tools | Fri Mar 20 1987 16:31 | 1 |
| Why not just call a single person of either sex "a single person"?
|
| 165.62 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Sat Mar 21 1987 11:34 | 12 |
|
�Why not just call a single person of either sex "a single person"?
There is no problem: this rat hole started because of a rhetorical remark
(by Tamar?) that there is no [single] word to describe a woman who isn't
married. There are limitless possibilities once you allow phrases rather
than words.
re dictionaries: the one I use is a Merriam-Webster unabridged that was
produced for Encyclop�dia Britannica in the late '70s
/. Ian .\
|
| 165.63 | Pronoun trouble | ULTRA::ZURKO | Security is not pretty | Mon Mar 23 1987 09:24 | 13 |
| I'm sure there's a better place for this, but doing a "dir" didn't help
me find it. A co-worker sent me this interesting bit of info:
Mez
I seem to remember a serious proposal which was once made to coin 2-3 new
gender-neutral pronouns. It's too bad it never caught on. As I remember
them, they were:
e = nominative case singular. (she/he)
em = objective case singular. (her/him)
er = singular possessive. (her/his)
They sound a bit Cockney, but they have the advantage of simplicity.
|
| 165.64 | Experience from other languages | MAY20::MINOW | I need a vacation | Mon Mar 23 1987 10:10 | 21 |
| I'm sure I've said this somewhere else, but, here goes anyways:
Finnish has no grammatical gender. There is one "3rd person singular"
pronoun, "h�n," and no way in the language to determine the sex of
an individual without explicitly stating it.
My Finnish friends do not believe that they are living in a non-sexist
society.
Other languages without grammatical gender include Hungarian and Turkish.
If you think new pronouns will change the way women are treated in this
society, invent them and use them all you want. Somehow, I doubt it.
(While we're on the topic, note that several dialects of American
English use/used the word "boy" to refer to a male Negro. This is
now out of fashion. Do you really think that change of linguistic
fashion was what changed the status of male blacks in America?)
Martin.
|
| 165.65 | | JETSAM::REZUCHA | | Mon Mar 23 1987 10:47 | 20 |
| I believe that how we relate affects how we think. One of my closest friends
is incredibly sexist in commentary - to the point where I have mentioned that
it makes me uncomfortable. The comments don't bother me but the effect that
they have is what I am watching our for. I find the same thing happens to me
when I am dealing with people who are constantly depressed, angry, etc.
Either I start to 'absorb' some of their traits or I mentally have to build
a wall to separate me from them. I do not what to have to do this with my
friends.
For this reason I believe that elimination of 'boy', 'chick', etc, as
accepted terms to *non negatively* represent a group. I myself do use
'chick' but to me it is a derogatory term to represent a manipulative
young woman. If someone called me 'boy', I would feel that they are trying
to start a fight.
I wish there were more appropriate terms for SO and more tender terms
for sex, body parts, etc.
-Tom
|
| 165.66 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Mar 23 1987 10:50 | 1 |
| every wee bit helps, Martin.
|
| 165.67 | language is a symptom, not a cause | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Mon Mar 23 1987 10:56 | 6 |
| re .64:
Sexist language is only one symptom of a sexist society. Sounds like
you might be saying the same thing in a different way?
-Ellen
|
| 165.68 | | LYMPH::DICKSON | Network Design tools | Mon Mar 23 1987 11:56 | 15 |
| I think the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (that language limits and controls our
thought) is pretty much out of fashion among linguists these days. I would
go along with the idea that language can reflect how we think.
The eskimos have all those words for snow because they NEED all those words
for snow. When the ice age comes, we will invent those words for English,
too. The term "Ms" was invented because we needed a way to express a
concept that had not previously been needed. Society changed. The term
does not create the concept.
The honorific (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, etc) in Japanese is independant of sex
and of marital status. There are only two, one meaning "honored" and one
meaning "most honored". It has been like that for centuries.
- Paul
|
| 165.69 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Mon Mar 23 1987 12:15 | 14 |
| re .68:
It's not at all uncommon for language to be unintentionally abusive.
For example, many Inuits consider the term 'eskimo' to be a derogatory
and demeaning term; I'm sure that you didn't intend it as such,
though.
Also, the sexism in English is not a one-way street: there is a
derogatory term for a man whose wife in unfaithful (cuckold), yet no
analagous demeaning term exists for a woman. There is also a lovely
word for a woman with whom someone is in love (inamorata), yet there
is no similar term for a man.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 165.70 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Mon Mar 23 1987 12:21 | 10 |
| I'd argue that the relationship has a lot of circularity and mutual
dependency in it, Paul. Which is why we have the problem of semantics,
and why, e.g., dehumanisation of some group is made either easier
or harder by the words chosen to apply to the group.
=maggie
(Ms has always been "needed", just that the need was ignored.
(Presuming that you will concede the existance of needs apart from
those widely recognised))
|
| 165.71 | Alfred K. lives | LYMPH::DICKSON | Network Design tools | Mon Mar 23 1987 13:44 | 11 |
| No offense intended toward anyone living where there is a lot of snow.
I'll have to dig up my old General Semantics material. I hate it when
someone says, "that is only an issue of semantics". If we don't agree on
exactly what words mean and what they don't mean, how are we going to
understand each other, especially if we are not communicating face-to-face?
(Many Phase Zero Review arguments come from from such misunderstandings.)
I agree "Ms" has always been "needed". But a word will only come into
common use when it is expressing a commonly understood concept. How one
spreads a new concept may or may not involve the use of a new word.
|
| 165.72 | Sci-Fi Equality | AQUA::WALKER | | Wed Jan 20 1988 15:34 | 9 |
| Re: 165.4
Breastfeeding - Imagine how different the world would be if nine
months after a man fathered a baby his breasts became capable and
ready to breastfeed. After a woman carried the baby for nine
months she could share the next responsibility with the father
of the infant for the upcoming nine months. Now that would be
more equal.
|