X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_10_20, HTML_MESSAGE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.0 Sender: -1.2 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j9FMkC7E001184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:46:12 -0400 Received: from madman.mr.itd.umich.edu (madman.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.75]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9FMkBhN024155; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:46:11 -0400 Received: FROM xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.205]) BY madman.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 43518692.7D1C1.5616 ; 15 Oct 2005 18:45:38 -0400 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s9so373383wxc for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fcOrooDMTHKcOsXIsL5x4EktyhB2A/065dqsqXYOuUici+gBVMBqddUfgXmTonOyC8G/0U0bGBV9Ky3yAp5Af/7vheLQifpI9PkGR0RTZBUZ8k7fTXQ5E5Z/lt8Jl3s1ryHw3ChT70J3FxHkk5xFTAOpHMCeQOwVYWb1qc84TTo= Received: by 10.70.69.20 with SMTP id r20mr1775527wxa; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.74.19 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8d3580670510151545t9248f4dr88d4721b454b7520 Æ mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4444_17664935.1129416338148" References: <20051013184514.22211.qmail Æ web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <434FE629.8F4ADABB Æ wayne.edu> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:45:38 -0400 To: "David Morris, PhD" Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Lisa Hsu Subject: Re: Masculinism Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 224 ------=_Part_4444_17664935.1129416338148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline this is also basically the point i was shooting for - my ideal world is one where anyone can do what their heart tells them (work, be an engineer, be a nurse, be a secretary, stay at home, be a fortune 500 CEO, whatever), without judgment or repercussions. i don't mind if it's not even because i don't think 50 percent of men secretly want to stay at home. i'd be satisfied with just 75/25 with some things, like stay-at-homism. that would be a high enough number where it wouldn't be strange to see. lisa On 10/15/05, David Morris, PhD wrote: > > Erica's response makes exactly the point that I was going to next make, > but better. My relationship with my parents, while different, falls > closer to her description than to Andrews. And my feelings about having > and raising my own children fall more into the female stereotype than > the male. > > Yet I agree with Andrew that there is a statistical distribution with > compatibility to the gender roles that is quite significant, and I have > no problem with people filling those roles based on that distribution. > > The question I ask, and I hope this very interesting discussion will > help drive out the answer to, is how do we create a society that allows > that there will be stereotype enforcing naturally evolved tendencies > based on gender and other criteria (i.e. where most women want to have > and raise children, and most men are content to go out and work and > leave this task mostly to the women), without pressuring those who do > not fit this pattern to go against their natures, possibly at deep > personal and societal cost? What a terrible loss too have a man who > would have been a great primary caregiver decide not to because because > it is looked down on by his profession, his friends, and possibly even > his wife? What a fate for children to be raised by a woman who doesn't > have the patience and tolerance to do a proper job, but does so just > because she is biologically equipped? Same question in reverse, how > do we allow people to be completely free to discover their own personal > aptitudes and follow them, without making those who fall perfectly into > the stereotype feel like they're just conforming or otherwise bad for > doing the default, (i.e. pressuring women who want to and would be good > at staying home as mothers from doing so)? > > I see this as a problem with most stereotypes. If there's any basis at > all, any tendency for it to be true, the stereotype forms in our > societal mind very quickly, and people are very naturally inclined to > expect it to be true for everyone, including themselves, and cause > problems when it's not. > > The current answer to my question seems to be to have extremists > battling it out loudly, (we're not extremists, but then we're not > publishing or marching on Washington either), each decrying the other's > position, and thus everyone is able to see that there are at least two > if not a range of choices. The more loudly, or perhaps the more equally > loudly, both sides make their point, the less sway the stereotype has. > Maybe it's human nature that this is the way it will always be. Our > government seems to function as a set of continual battles between > extremes as well. There doesn't seem to be a good way to keep things > balanced just in the middle... but maybe I'm wrong, I find that > question very interesting. > > > And while I do agree that there's a tendency to fall into stereotypical > gender roles, without being able to prove it, I disagree that the > distribution of gender role tendencies based on gender is > "overwhelming". I disagree that the truly important things about being > a good parent, things like patience, tolerance, compassion, wisdom, > etc. are as strongly tied to overt biological characteristics (such as > having breasts) as we think they are. Genetically men and women are > nearly identical, the ingredients for all aspects exist in both, and > especially mentally I think they are quite mixed. I think in the long > run we will learn that with the comfort of today's technology, where > the mental criteria are the only ones that really matter anymore, we > are doing more forcing ourselves to conform to stereotypes than we are > filling the roles we are suited/want to. I agree that there will > probably always be more women who are better parents than their > husbands than vice versa, but my guess is that the split is more like > 60/40 than the 95/5 that people expect it to be today. So I guess it's > that extra 35% that I'm trying to save with this argument. :-) > > Finally, to flesh out my earlier argument, I think we all have a mix of > natural inclinations inside of us that are self-conflicting. None of us > are perfectly suited for any role. So we necessarily re-enforce the > inclinations that are strongest or work the best, and suppress the ones > that go counter to our chosen roles, whatever roles we choose. > Evolution didn't do a perfect job, so we make due with what we've got. > This is hard enough even individually, so all the more reason to find a > way to make society as flexible as possible in allowing people to find > their own roles, following the standard mammalian role or bucking it as > they personally see fit. > > One more random thought, maybe instead of feminism or masculinism, we > should call it anti-stereotypinism. :-) > > Dave > > ps- Je ne parle pas de tout la Latin . :-) > > > > > On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Reeves wrote: > > > Thank you for your interesting response. I do not doubt that actual > > human personalities are a varying mix of the "masculine principle" (go > > out and get the bacon) vs. the "feminine principle" (stay home and tend > > the hearth), with nobody 100% one or the other. But these personality > > types were named as they are because of their superior biological > > suitability to play these roles, which is also the overwhelming present > > statistical distribution between the genders. I think it's perfectly > > all > > right if everyone follows his/her own inclinations which every now and > > then might go against the mainstream. I only object to societal > > pressures trying to force people into molds they do not fit into. > > Remember, this whole debate started with a report in the New York Times > > claiming that the trend in elite colleges these days favors stay-home > > moms over professionally active women during the reproductive years. > > Robert Felty suggested that this impression was deliberately created by > > biased choice of the interviewed subjects; Danny felt that it was a > > self-fulfilling prophecy with anti-feminist ulterior motives. Dave > > admitted that the trend may be genuine but he regarded it as an > > undesirable residue of ancient and now obsolete natural inclinations. > > It is only against these ideas that I voiced protest. > > By the way, I must admit shamefacedly that I do not understand > > "vescere bracis meis"! So much for my six years of school Latin. > > DANNY'S GRANDPA ANDREW > > > > > > > David P. Morris, PhD > aka thecat Æ umich.edu, aka KB8PWY > home: 734-995-5525 UofM (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357 fax: 734-763-5567 > ElectroDynamic Applications Inc. > phone: (734)786-1434 fax: (734)786-3235 > morris Æ edapplications.com > > ------=_Part_4444_17664935.1129416338148 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline this is also basically the point i was shooting for - my ideal world is one where anyone can do what their heart tells them (work, be an engineer, be a nurse, be a secretary, stay at home, be a fortune 500 CEO, whatever), without judgment or repercussions.  i don't mind if it's not even because i don't think 50 percent of men secretly want to stay at home.  i'd be satisfied with just 75/25 with some things, like stay-at-homism.  that would be a high enough number where it wouldn't be strange to see.

lisa

On 10/15/05, David Morris, PhD <thecat Æ u= mich.edu> wrote:
Erica's response makes exactly the point that I was going to next make,
= but better. My relationship with my parents, while different, falls
clos= er to her description than to Andrews. And my feelings about having
and raising my own children fall more into the female stereotype than
th= e male.

Yet I agree with Andrew that there is a statistical distribu= tion with
compatibility to the gender roles that is quite significant, a= nd I have
no problem with people filling those roles based on that distribution.<= br>
The question I ask, and I hope this very interesting discussion will=
help drive out the answer to, is how do we create a society that allows
that there will be stereotype enforcing naturally evolved tendenciesbased on gender and other criteria (i.e. where most women want to have
= and raise children, and most men are content to go out and work and
leave this task mostly to the women), without pressuring those who do
no= t fit this pattern to go against their natures, possibly at deep
persona= l and societal cost? What a terrible loss too have a man who
would have = been a great primary caregiver decide not to because because
it is looked down on by his profession, his friends, and possibly even<= br>his wife? What a fate for children to be raised by a woman who doesn'thave the patience and tolerance to do a proper job, but does so just
because she is biologically equipped?   Same question in reverse,= how
do we allow people to be completely free to discover their own pers= onal
aptitudes and follow them, without making those who fall perfectly = into
the stereotype feel like they're just conforming or otherwise bad for
do= ing the default, (i.e. pressuring women who want to and would be good
at= staying home as mothers from doing so)?

I see this as a problem wit= h most stereotypes. If there's any basis at
all, any tendency for it to be true, the stereotype forms in our
soc= ietal mind very quickly, and people are very naturally inclined to
expec= t it to be true for everyone, including themselves, and cause
problems w= hen it's not.

The current answer to my question seems to be to have extremistsbattling it out loudly, (we're not extremists, but then we're not
publi= shing or marching on Washington either), each decrying the other's
posit= ion, and thus everyone is able to see that there are at least two
if not a range of choices. The more loudly, or perhaps the more equally=
loudly, both sides make their point, the less sway the stereotype has.<= br>Maybe it's human nature that this is the way it will always be. Our
government seems to function as a set of continual battles between
extre= mes as well. There doesn't seem to be a good way to keep things
balanced= just in the middle... but maybe I'm wrong, I find that
question very in= teresting.


And while I do agree that there's a tendency to fall into stere= otypical
gender roles, without being able to prove it, I disagree that t= he
distribution of gender role tendencies based on gender is
"ov= erwhelming". I disagree that the truly important things about being
a good parent, things like patience, tolerance, compassion, wisdom,
= etc. are as strongly tied to overt biological characteristics (such as
h= aving breasts) as we think they are. Genetically men and women are
nearl= y identical, the ingredients for all aspects exist in both, and
especially mentally I think they are quite mixed. I think in the longrun we will learn that with the comfort of today's technology, where
t= he mental criteria are the only ones that really matter anymore, we
are doing more forcing ourselves to conform to stereotypes than we are
f= illing the roles we are suited/want to. I agree that there will
probably= always be more women who are better parents than their
husbands than vi= ce versa, but my guess is that the split is more like
60/40 than the 95/5 that people expect it to be today. So I guess it's<= br>that extra 35% that I'm trying to save with this argument. :-)

Fi= nally, to flesh out my earlier argument, I think we all have a mix of
natural inclinations inside of us that are self-conflicting. None of us
= are perfectly suited for any role. So we necessarily re-enforce the
incl= inations that are strongest or work the best, and suppress the ones
that go counter to our chosen roles, whatever roles we choose.
Evolution= didn't do a perfect job, so we make due with what we've got.
This is ha= rd enough even individually, so all the more reason to find a
way to mak= e society as flexible as possible in allowing people to find
their own roles, following the standard mammalian role or bucking it as=
they personally see fit.

One more random thought, maybe instead = of feminism or masculinism, we
should call it anti-stereotypinism. :-)

Dave

ps- Je ne parle pas de tout la Latin . :-)


<= br>
On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Reeves wrote:

> &= nbsp;  Thank you for your interesting response. I do not doubt th= at actual
> human personalities are a varying mix of the "mascul= ine principle" (go
> out and get the bacon) vs. the "feminine principle" (sta= y home and tend
> the hearth), with nobody 100% one or the other. But= these personality
> types were named as they are because of their su= perior biological
> suitability to play these roles, which is also the overwhelming pr= esent
> statistical distribution between the genders. I think it's pe= rfectly
> all
> right if everyone follows his/her own inclinati= ons which every now and
> then might go against the mainstream. I only object to societal> pressures trying to force people into molds they do not fit into.
= > Remember, this whole debate started with a report in the New York Time= s
> claiming that the trend in elite colleges these days favors stay-h= ome
> moms over professionally active women during the reproductive y= ears.
> Robert Felty suggested that this impression was deliberately = created by
> biased choice of the interviewed subjects; Danny felt that it was = a
> self-fulfilling prophecy with anti-feminist ulterior motives. Dav= e
> admitted that the trend may be genuine but he regarded it as an
> undesirable residue of ancient and now obsolete natural inclinatio= ns.
> It is only against these ideas that I voiced protest.
>&n= bsp;   By the way, I must admit shamefacedly that I do not u= nderstand
> "vescere bracis meis"! So much for my six years= of school Latin.
>    DANNY'S GRANDPA ANDREW
>
>
&= gt;
David P. Morris, PhD
aka thec= at Æ umich.edu, aka KB8PWY
home: 734-995-5525  UofM (2104 SP= RL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
ElectroDynamic Applications Inc.
phone: (734)786-1434 fax: (734)786-= 3235
morris Æ edapplications.= com


------=_Part_4444_17664935.1129416338148--