------=_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 umich .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 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- 35 
morris Æ edapplications.com       

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