------=_Part_7224_29736067.1130995109230
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I think this discussion is very interesting because, in a way, it pits the
personal against the societal. What I mean is, when I wrote before about
hoping for a world where everyone could do whatever it is they wanted (in
terms of staying home or bringing home tofu and such related things) without
judgement or negative repercussions, that's sort of an individualistic
worldview. "I want to be able to do whatever it is I want, and if that means
stay at home, then by all means I will, regardless of whether other
feminists say that I'm a traitor or not."
At the same time, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that this is
somewhat of a catch-22 desire. If I want a society that can be composed of
individuals who can do whatever they want, then it will only happen if there
is a critical mass of men and women fighting for such a situation, which
necessarily means that perhaps some people will have to decide to take on a
role they may not have wanted in order to achieve this greater goal for
society, which I deduce is something that Danny and Erica may not mind if it
will achieve this greater good. And it's true - you need women
representatives is the laws that are going to be passed are going to reflect
the needs of women, you need women voters, you need women CEO's to enact
corporate policies that are good for all of their employees regardless of
gender - and the key is you need ENOUGH of them to actually make a
difference. a few won't do....
I sometimes find myself feeling this tug strongly in my little microcosmic
dilemma of being a good engineer. I know I have the stuff to make it, but I
can't say that I'm ON FIRE for computer science the way some people I work
with are. I do enjoy it, but I don't know, I could enjoy a lot of other
things too. But sometimes I think - I have to stick with it. I have to be an
example. I have to show people it can be done. Other girls, men I work with
- I am a force to be reckoned with. I have to be visible enough that I can
be an inspiration and start a movement that will end with girls getting into
CS all over the place. However, sometimes I'm just like....do I really want
to do this? I'll have to have my nose to the grindstone if I'm going to get
that much exposure....Forever and ever? hmmmm.....
The other day, a first year girl told me she was so glad to know I'm in the
department and well on my way to getting my degree. She said, she didn't
think she
fit in, everyone was so geeky and didn't seem to care about the things same
things she cared about. She saw me, and was like, "she's doing the phd, and
she dresses cute and seems cool, so i guess i don't have to be a
stereotypical nerd to do this." that made me feel good, i was like, "dude,
if i wasn't here, she might have been so disheartened she would have quit or
decided to get a masters and get out of here." of course, that's still
possible....but...did i make a difference? perhaps at the expense of my true
desires? i don't know.
it's a very interesting debate.
On 11/2/05, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
> Rock on! Can you define a couple terms for our listeners:
> * proximate mechanisms
> * inclusive fitness
> * cultural group selection (references welcome, but I'll go on record as
> suspecting this concept to be bogus -- fortunately I don't think your
> argument relies on it)
>
> I don't have time to say more about this now other than that I'm with
> Erica 100% on this. Here's something I thought I forwarded some time ago
> but it's not in the improvetheworld archives so here it is:
> (I'm skimming through this again and it's pretty fascinating. This was
> written 20 years ago and there are a few areas where we have made more
> progress. Can anyone spot them?)
>
> FEMINIST UTOPIA
>
> > Synopsis: the battle is over; feminists still retain the
> > old world view; why?
> >
> > My friend and I are reasonably intelligent and observant
> > individuals... we simply do not see the injustices claimed
> > by modern-day "feminists". What we have seen and experienced
> > is probably the "utopia" dreamed of by the feminists who
> > fought so long and hard and claim that the battle still
> > continues... where? In undergrad and grad school (EE and OR)
> > I saw no discrimination . . .
> > My friend (a woman) . . .
> > who works in Marketing for medical products has seen no
> > discrimination. . . .
> > Since I've been working here I've seen no evidence
> > of discrimination. When we hear feminists make claims as to the
> > horrible world we live in and the tremendous injustices
> > done to women in it, we look around and wonder what planet
> > they are speaking of... it certainly does not resemble
> > how we perceive the USA in the year 1986... it does resemble
> > the USA in the past, but that is history.
>
> We won! We won! The polls are in, the facts have been assessed, and we
> won! Relax sisters and brothers in the battle for equality; the war is
> over and we can enjoy the well earned fruits of victory.
>
> The ERA has passed and "Equality of rights under the law shall not be
> denied or abridged on account of sex" is the law of the land.
>
> There is a female president in the White House, and the recently reached
> parity in the number of men and women in both houses of Congress (and in
> government at the state and local levels) ensures that Lincoln's rhetoric
> is finally true. We have "government of the people, by the people, and
> for the people", rather than government of, by, and for men.
>
> Women have been fully integrated into American business. Half of the CEOs
> and management of American companies are now women. American labor unions
> have at last realized the dignity and importance of the female worker;
> half of the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. you encounter will be
> women.
>
> Men have been fully integrated into the American family. The realization
> has finally arrived that a couple's children are truely the equal
> responsibility and right of both parents. Men in great numbers have taken
> up the call for decent and afordable day care because the need for it
> impacts THEIR careers. He, as often as she, leaves work when the kids are
> sick. Joint custody has become the rule in divorce cases, and where
> custody is given to one parent it is as likely to be the father as the
> mother. Where couples can afford it and desire a one wage earner family,
> househusbands are seen as often as housewives. Where both work, housework
> and childcare are shared on a friendly and equal basis.
>
> The military establishment has ceased to coerce young people on the basis
> of sex. Young women who want to serve their country for a time or make a
> career of the military are no longer shunted into auxilliary support
> groups that have little to do with the real business of the military.
> Young men who do not want to go into the military are not in danger of
> being forced.
>
> The fundamentalist religious right has reverted to being a religious
> revival, and is no longer an anti-feminist political force. They are
> saving souls instead of bombing abortion clinics, lobbying against day
> care legislation, and preventing birth control from being included in aid
> packages to starving third world countries. The Roman Catholic church has
> relented on the issue of a male only celebate clergy. Since their
> heirarchy is no longer forced to regard women primarily as temptation,
> they can see them as fellow human beings. Consequently the church no
> longer takes political stands on issues like divorce, abortion, and birth
> control.
>
> American schools have ceased to be institutions that rudely push or subtly
> cajole our children into old fashioned sex roles. That article I saw in
> this week's TIME, the one that quoted the superintendent of schools in
> Massachusetts as saying "We discourage the girls from using scarce
> computer resources because our boys are going to need that knowledge in
> their engineering careers." -- that article was a mistake. The
> retraction is even now being typeset. The newspaper interview I saw last
> month with some Minnesota teacher who was up for a major teaching award - -
> he didn't really say that boys were easier to teach because girls were
> flighty and cared mostly about dates and clothes. It was all a mistake.
> And no one wrote to the newspaper to call him on it and demand he be
> denied his award (as they would surely have done had he made some similar
> remark about blacks) because they knew it was a mistake. We're all
> waiting confidantly for the correction to be published.
>
> And it's so wonderful to know that in my own life I can relax and enjoy
> the feminist Utopia. Tomorrow when I arrive at work, I will no longer
> find an engineering company that employes hundreds of engineers -- and has
> a growing staff of female engineers who can all go out to lunch together
> and sit at the same table in a local restaurant. I will no longer work
> for a male department head who feels free to stand around the halls and
> make remarks about how women are a pain to have in the work force because
> they have no sense of teamwork -- probably, he says, because they never
> played team sports in school. I'll never again go into a meeting of other
> staff people at my level and be suddenly afraid that I've blundered into
> the men's room. When I go to my local medical clinic the next time I know
> I'll see an equal number of female and male doctors, not the one in twenty
> ratio I've been used to -- and, of course, the support staff of nurses,
> clerks, and technicians will be half men. How wonderful it will be not to
> have to worry any more about the cub scouts turning my boy into an
> unthinking male chauvinist piglet by using 'girl' as a constant insult --
> "Come on there, what are you, a bunch of GIRLS, get out there and WIN."
> How wonderful never again to explain to some male co-worker that I feel
> about the word 'broad' the same way I feel about the word 'nigger' and
> have him say "But I wasn't talking about YOU, Carole." as if that made
> everything all right.
>
> God, the more I think about it, the more wonderful it seems to be able to
> live my life in the feminist Utopia. Free at last, free at last . . .
> Huh? What? Wait a minute, you mean it's not all true? But he SAID we
> were living in the feminist utopia. He said it right here on the net.
> And his female friend agreed. They MUST have meant that all these things
> I've been talking about were true. I mean, really, there couldn't
> possibly be anybody so (?)impossibly naive(?), as to think that the
> revolution was over and the utopia arrived if these things weren't true.
> Could there?
>
>
> Carole Ashmore
>
>
>
> --- \/ FROM Erica O'Connor AT 05.11.02 10:52 (Today) \/ ---
>
> > Thank you to everyone who has responded to my
> > comments and participated in this debate thus far. I
> > feel as though it is far from resolved, however. I've
> > taken a bit of time to collect my thoughts (and
> > supporting evidence!); so I hope that the topic hasn't
> > grown too stale to stand revisiting.
> > Comments such as the following really stuck hard
> > in my throat.
> > "I agree that there will probably always be more women
> > who are better parents than their husbands than vice
> > versa."--Dave
> > Dr. Reeves also expressed the belief that more
> > stay-at-home mothers than stay-at-home fathers would
> > be "in perfect conformity with mammalian instincts,
> > social structure, and the interest of the next
> > generation."
> > Since when did we decide that men are *inferior*
> > at child rearing? It should be obvious that the
> > simple fact that there are currently more stay-at-home
> > mothers and mothers as primary child care givers in
> > our society does absolutely *nothing* to inform us
> > about the superiority or desirability of this
> > arrangement in terms of the well-being of children--or
> > the well-being of society for that matter. Female
> > mammals nurse their young. Yeah, so what's the point?
> > Does that mean that it is best for a human female to
> > be there to personally wipe her child's nose every
> > single time they sniffle? And that she must choose
> > between this and a significant career? Doubtful. And
> > again, alone, the mere existence of breasts gets us
> > nowhere (except maybe backwards) in moral argument.
> > Remember that rape can also be considered a "standard
> > mammalian instinct". Please, please don't make me go
> > on about the naturalistic fallacy; I will bore
> > everyone for sure.
> > My original hypothesis was that individuals may
> > be more or less suited for child rearing but this
> > quality is not necessarily linked with the sex of the
> > parent. And I stick by it unless I'm proved
> > otherwise. I dug up a relevant family study for
> > everyone's enjoyment. The PDF is attached. The paper
> > compares the well-being of children in single-father
> > versus single-mother family structures. The
> > researchers first give an informative overview of some
> > of the other work done on this topic. If nothing else
> > this should convince us that the issue is anything but
> > settled in favor of female parents' "superiority".
> > This particular study does give good support for the
> > idea that men and women make equally good parents.
> > Interestingly, plenty of gender stereotypes related to
> > child-rearing gain no support. For instance, male
> > single-parents aren't better disciplinarians as some
> > expected. Just because some trait is traditionally or
> > historically associated with a particular gender
> > doesn't mean that it is immutably so.
> > Analogously, I would need to see some empirical
> > evidence in support of the claim that women are not as
> > "biologically suited" as men to earn a living and
> > support a family. Do note that this assertion is
> > simply the logical inverse of "men are better suited
> > biologically bring home the bacon"--something stated
> > outright or at least tacitly accepted by many thus
> > far. (I wince at that for other reasons as well. I'd
> > much rather bring home the tofu.) Granted, in this
> > country it *is* more difficult for a woman to ascend
> > in the workforce than it is for a man. But the reason
> > for this is hardly "biological" in the narrow sense of
> > the word. Glass ceilings still exist. In Michigan
> > women only make 67 cents on the dollar compared to men
> > in the same exact positions doing the same amount of
> > work. Women only make up %15 of the US Congress. I'm
> > sorry to pick on you, Dr. Reeves, but Dave is clearly
> > not pounding on open doors. Pointing to a small
> > handful of women in prominent, powerful positions
> > doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a
> > deficient status quo. For the same reason it would be
> > silly to pronounce that racial discrimination is
> > entirely a thing of the past just because Barack Obama
> > is who he is. These two highly relevant programs were
> > dropped in my lap recently. (The NPR genie rarely
> > fails me.) They each feature a different study on
> > discrimination against women in the workplace and in
> > general. There's plenty of fodder for discussion
> > here.
> > http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Aug/hour2_082605.html
> > http://jackshow.blogs.com/jack/recent_shows/index.html
> > Men have always and everywhere held the reins of
> > power. We cannot easily rule out, then, that
> > patriarchal societies do a stellar job of "convincing"
> > a vast majority of women that they "want" to be
> > dependant baby-machines and need not aspire to much
> > else. And possibly this is why we still have an
> > innocuous-seeming lopsided distribution of gender
> > roles. This should at least be an open
> > question--especially considering all the obstacles
> > flung in the path of women trying to gain power. But
> > regardless of the answer we are still free to decide
> > objectively what we want society to be like.
> > Now for the perscriptive part of my argument.
> > But first I must lay a bit of groundwork. Human
> > beings are indisputably ruled by their biological
> > compositions. In as sense this is practically a
> > truism; however, it is also well known that behavioral
> > expression is environmentally contextual to a large
> > extent. Lucky for us we are sufficiently self-aware
> > to purposefully manipulate our own environment (for
> > our purposes I mean primarily our cultural
> > environment) to suit our needs. We are not stuck
> > embracing our so-called "biological tendencies" for
> > better or worse, nor do we need to think of ourselves
> > as shoving them shamefully under the rug.
> > Conceptualizing things in this way is not very useful.
> > Instead we should think of our natures as more
> > pleasingly manifested under certain conditions, some
> > of which can be manufactured. So long as these
> > cultural constructions effectively work around,
> > manipulate, and cater to humans' proximate mechanisms
> > designed to maximize their inclusive fitness we're
> > golden! Human behavioral ecologists have already
> > posited that such "work-arounds" must be employed in
> > order to allow for the high level of cooperation seen
> > in modern societies. Amazingly, even behaviors very
> > costly to one's inclusive fitness are theoretically
> > sustainable in a population via cultural group
> > selection. This is extremely encouraging. It means
> > (to me, anyway) that we can imagine even more
> > prosocial societies than those that exist today. And
> > we certainly need not resign ourselves to any
> > preordained gender roles.
> > My argument does no rely on males and females
> > being essentially equal in all ways. They are not.
> > But we have a plausible mechanism which circumvents
> > these pesky fears about male vs. female differences
> > frustrating social progress. And by no means am I
> > suggesting this is the only mechanism by which we can
> > exact world improvement.
> > Back to the original discussion. It has been
> > shown that cross-culturally the more equitably public
> > and domestic duties are distributed among males and
> > females the less gender stratification exists. We
> > should work towards that ideal. Women voting, gaining
> > more power, and entering the workforce has been
> > categorically good, though a struggle all the way.
> > Thus, I consider many more permanent stay-at-home
> > mothers than permanent stay-at-home fathers as
> > distinctly counterproductive and undesirable. We can
> > do a whole lot better. There, took me a while to get
> > to it, but there it is. I greatly appreciate your
> > endurance. Any replies will be relished. :-)
> >
> > -Erica
> > P.S. References on cultural group selection available
> > upon request.
> >
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - google://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> Reporter: Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?
> Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
>
>
------=_Part_7224_29736067.1130995109230
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I think this discussion is very interesting because, in a way, it pits
the personal against the societal. What I mean is, when I wrote
before about hoping for a world where everyone could do whatever it is
they wanted (in terms of staying home or bringing home tofu and such
related things) without judgement or negative repercussions, that's
sort of an individualistic worldview. "I want to be able to do
whatever it is I want, and if that means stay at home, then by all
means I will, regardless of whether other feminists say that I'm a
traitor or not."
At the same time, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that this is
somewhat of a catch-22 desire. If I want a society that can be
composed of individuals who can do whatever they want, then it will
only happen if there is a critical mass of men and women fighting for
such a situation, which necessarily means that perhaps some people will
have to decide to take on a role they may not have wanted in order to
achieve this greater goal for society, which I deduce is something that
Danny and Erica may not mind if it will achieve this greater
good. And it's true - you need women representatives is the laws
that are going to be passed are going to reflect the needs of women,
you need women voters, you need women CEO's to enact corporate policies
that are good for all of their employees regardless of gender - and the
key is you need ENOUGH of them to actually make a difference. a
few won't do....
I sometimes find myself feeling this tug strongly in my little
microcosmic dilemma of being a good engineer. I know I have the
stuff to make it, but I can't say that I'm ON FIRE for computer science
the way some people I work with are. I do enjoy it, but I don't
know, I could enjoy a lot of other things too. But sometimes I
think - I have to stick with it. I have to be an example. I
have to show people it can be done. Other girls, men I work with
- I am a force to be reckoned with. I have to be visible enough
that I can be an inspiration and start a movement that will end with
girls getting into CS all over the place. However, sometimes I'm
just like....do I really want to do this? I'll have to have my
nose to the grindstone if I'm going to get that much
exposure....Forever and ever? hmmmm.....
The other day, a first year girl told me she was so glad to know
I'm in the department and well on my way to getting my degree.
<major stereotypes about to be said, but unfortunately somewhat
true> She said, she didn't think she fit in, everyone was so
geeky and didn't seem to care about the things same things she cared
about. She saw me, and was like, "she's doing the phd, and she
dresses cute and seems cool, so i guess i don't have to be a
stereotypical nerd to do this." that made me feel good, i was
like, "dude, if i wasn't here, she might have been so disheartened she
would have quit or decided to get a masters and get out of here." ;
of course, that's still possible....but...did i make a
difference? perhaps at the expense of my true desires? i
don't know.
it's a very interesting debate. On /2/05, Daniel Reeves < dreeves
Æ umich.edu > wrote:
Rock on! Can you define a couple terms for our listeners: ; * proximate
mechanisms * inclusive fitness ; * cultural group selection
(references welcome, but I'll go on record as suspecting this concept to
be bogus -- fortunately I don't think your
argument relies on it) I don't have time to say more about this now
other than that I'm with Erica 100% on this . Here's something I thought I
forwarded some time ago but it 's not in the improvetheworld archives so here
it is:
(I'm skimming through this again and it's pretty fascinating . This was
written 20 years ago and there are a few areas where we have made more
progress. Can anyone spot them?) FEMINIST UTOPIA > Synopsis: the battle
is over; feminists still retain the
> old world view; why? > > My friend and I are reasonably
intelligent and observant > individuals... we simply do not see the
injustices claimed > by modern-day "feminists". What we have seen and
experienced
> is probably the "utopia" dreamed of by the feminists who > fought so
long and hard and claim that the battle still > continues ... where? In
undergrad and grad school (EE and OR) > I saw no discrimination . . .
> My friend (a woman) . . . > who works in Marketing for medical
products has seen no > discrimination. . . . > Since I've been working
here I've seen no evidence > of discrimination. When we hear feminists make
claims as to the
> horrible world we live in and the tremendous injustices > done to
women in it, we look around and wonder what planet > they are speaking
of... it certainly does not resemble > how we perceive the USA in the year
1986... it does resemble
> the USA in the past, but that is history. We won! ;We won! The
polls are in, the facts have been assessed, and we won! Relax sisters and
brothers in the battle for equality; the war is over and we can enjoy the well
earned fruits of victory.
The ERA has passed and "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
or abridged on account of sex" is the law of the land . There is a female
president in the White House, and the recently reached
parity in the number of men and women in both houses of Congress (and in
government at the state and local levels) ensures that Lincoln's rhetoric is
finally true. We have "government of the people, by the people, and
for the people", rather than government of, by, and for men. Women have been
fully integrated into American business. Half of the CEOs and management of
American companies are now women. ;American labor unions
have at last realized the dignity and importance of the female worker; half of
the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. you encounter will be women. Men
have been fully integrated into the American family . The realization
has finally arrived that a couple's children are truely the equal
responsibility and right of both parents. Men in great numbers have taken up
the call for decent and afordable day care because the need for it
impacts THEIR careers. He, as often as she, leaves work when the kids are
sick. Joint custody has become the rule in divorce cases , and where custody
is given to one parent it is as likely to be the father as the
mother. Where couples can afford it and desire a one wage earner family,
househusbands are seen as often as housewives. Where both work, housework and
childcare are shared on a friendly and equal basis . The military
establishment has ceased to coerce young people on the basis
of sex. Young women who want to serve their country for a time or make a
career of the military are no longer shunted into auxilliary support groups
that have little to do with the real business of the military .
Young men who do not want to go into the military are not in danger of being
forced. The fundamentalist religious right has reverted to being a religious
revival, and is no longer an anti-feminist political force . They are
saving souls instead of bombing abortion clinics, lobbying against day care
legislation, and preventing birth control from being included in aid packages
to starving third world countries. The Roman Catholic church has
relented on the issue of a male only celebate clergy. Since their heirarchy
is no longer forced to regard women primarily as temptation, they can see them
as fellow human beings. Consequently the church no longer takes political
stands on issues like divorce, abortion, and birth
control. American schools have ceased to be institutions that rudely push or
subtly cajole our children into old fashioned sex roles. ; That article I
saw in this week's TIME, the one that quoted the superintendent of schools in
Massachusetts as saying "We discourage the girls from using scarce computer
resources because our boys are going to need that knowledge in their
engineering careers." -- that article was a mistake . The
retraction is even now being typeset. The newspaper interview I saw last
month with some Minnesota teacher who was up for a major teaching award -- he
didn't really say that boys were easier to teach because girls were
flighty and cared mostly about dates and clothes. It was all a mistake. And
no one wrote to the newspaper to call him on it and demand he be denied his
award (as they would surely have done had he made some similar
remark about blacks) because they knew it was a mistake. We're all waiting
confidantly for the correction to be published. And it's so wonderful to know
that in my own life I can relax and enjoy the feminist Utopia. Tomorrow when
I arrive at work, I will no longer
find an engineering company that employes hundreds of engineers -- and has a
growing staff of female engineers who can all go out to lunch together and sit
at the same table in a local restaurant. I will no longer work
for a male department head who feels free to stand around the halls and make
remarks about how women are a pain to have in the work force because they have
no sense of teamwork -- probably, he says, because they never
played team sports in school. I'll never again go into a meeting of other
staff people at my level and be suddenly afraid that I've blundered into the
men's room. When I go to my local medical clinic the next time I know
I'll see an equal number of female and male doctors, not the one in twenty
ratio I've been used to -- and, of course, the support staff of nurses ,
clerks, and technicians will be half men. How wonderful it will be not to
have to worry any more about the cub scouts turning my boy into an unthinking
male chauvinist piglet by using 'girl' as a constant insult -- "Come on there,
what are you, a bunch of GIRLS, get out there and WIN ."
How wonderful never again to explain to some male co-worker that I feel about
the word 'broad' the same way I feel about the word 'nigger' and have him say
"But I wasn't talking about YOU, Carole." as if that made
everything all right. God, the more I think about it, the more wonderful it
seems to be able to live my life in the feminist Utopia. ; Free at last,
free at last . . . Huh? What? ;Wait a minute, you mean it's not all
true? But he SAID we
were living in the feminist utopia. He said it right here on the net. And
his female friend agreed. They MUST have meant that all these things I've
been talking about were true. I mean , really, there couldn't
possibly be anybody so (?)impossibly naive(?), as to think that the revolution
was over and the utopia arrived if these things weren't true. Could there?
; ; ; Carole
Ashmore --- \/ FROM Erica O'Connor AT 05.11.02 10 :52 (Today) \/ ---
> Thank you to everyone who has responded to my > comments and
participated in this debate thus far. I > feel as though it is far from
resolved , however. I've
> taken a bit of time to collect my thoughts (and > supporting
evidence!); so I hope that the topic hasn't > grown too stale to stand
revisiting. > Comments such as the following really stuck hard
> in my throat. > "I agree that there will probably always be more
women > who are better parents than their husbands than vice >
versa."--Dave > Dr. Reeves also expressed the belief that more
> stay-at-home mothers than stay-at-home fathers would > be " ;in
perfect conformity with mammalian instincts, > social structure , and the
interest of the next > generation." > ; Since when did we decide
that men are *inferior*
> at child rearing? It should be obvious that the > simple fact that
there are currently more stay-at-home > mothers and mothers as primary
child care givers in > our society does absolutely *nothing* to inform us
> about the superiority or desirability of this > arrangement in terms
of the well-being of children--or > the well-being of society for that
matter. Female > mammals nurse their young. ; Yeah, so what's the
point?
> Does that mean that it is best for a human female to > be there to
personally wipe her child's nose every > single time they sniffle? And
that she must choose > between this and a significant career? Doubtful.
And
> again, alone, the mere existence of breasts gets us > nowhere (except
maybe backwards) in moral argument. > Remember that rape can also be
considered a "standard > mammalian instinct". ; Please, please don't
make me go
> on about the naturalistic fallacy; I will bore > everyone for sure.
> My original hypothesis was that individuals may > be more or less
suited for child rearing but this > ; quality is not necessarily linked with
the sex of the
> parent. And I stick by it unless I'm proved > otherwise . I dug up a
relevant family study for > everyone's enjoyment . The PDF is attached.
The paper > compares the well-being of children in single-father
> versus single-mother family structures. The > researchers first give
an informative overview of some > of the other work done on this topic. If
nothing else > this should convince us that the issue is anything but
> settled in favor of female parents' "superiority". > ; This particular
study does give good support for the > idea that men and women make equally
good parents. > Interestingly, plenty of gender stereotypes related to
> child-rearing gain no support. For instance, male > ; single-parents
aren't better disciplinarians as some > expected. ; Just because some
trait is traditionally or > historically associated with a particular
gender
> doesn't mean that it is immutably so. > ; Analogously, I would
need to see some empirical > evidence in support of the claim that women
are not as > "biologically suited" ; as men to earn a living and
> support a family. Do note that this assertion is > ; simply the
logical inverse of "men are better suited > biologically bring home the
bacon"--something stated > outright or at least tacitly accepted by many
thus
> far. (I wince at that for other reasons as well. ;I'd > much
rather bring home the tofu.) Granted, in this > country it *is* more
difficult for a woman to ascend > in the workforce than it is for a man.
But the reason
> for this is hardly "biological" in the narrow sense of > the word.
Glass ceilings still exist. In Michigan > women only make 67 cents on the
dollar compared to men > in the same exact positions doing the same amount
of
> work. Women only make up %15 of the US Congress. ;I'm > sorry
to pick on you, Dr. Reeves, but Dave is clearly > ; not pounding on open
doors. Pointing to a small > handful of women in prominent, powerful
positions
> doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a > deficient status
quo. For the same reason it would be > silly to pronounce that racial
discrimination is > entirely a thing of the past just because Barack Obama
> is who he is. These two highly relevant programs were > dropped in my
lap recently. (The NPR genie rarely > fails me.) They each feature a
different study on > discrimination against women in the workplace and in
> general. There's plenty of fodder for discussion > ; here. >
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Aug/hour2_082605.html
> http ://jackshow.blogs.com/jack/recent_shows/index.html > Men
have always and everywhere held the reins of > power . We cannot easily
rule out, then, that
> patriarchal societies do a stellar job of "convincing" > a vast
majority of women that they "want" to be > dependant baby-machines and need
not aspire to much > else. And possibly this is why we still have an
> innocuous-seeming lopsided distribution of gender > roles. ;
This should at least be an open > question--especially considering all the
obstacles > flung in the path of women trying to gain power. But
> regardless of the answer we are still free to decide > objectively
what we want society to be like. > Now for the perscriptive part of my
argument. > But first I must lay a bit of groundwork. Human
> beings are indisputably ruled by their biological > compositions . In
as sense this is practically a > truism; however, it is also well known
that behavioral > expression is environmentally contextual to a large
> extent. Lucky for us we are sufficiently self-aware > to
purposefully manipulate our own environment (for > our purposes I mean
primarily our cultural > environment) to suit our needs. ; We are not
stuck
> embracing our so-called "biological tendencies" for > ; better or
worse, nor do we need to think of ourselves > as shoving them shamefully
under the rug. > Conceptualizing things in this way is not very useful.
> Instead we should think of our natures as more > pleasingly manifested
under certain conditions, some > of which can be manufactured . So long as
these > cultural constructions effectively work around,
> manipulate, and cater to humans' proximate mechanisms > designed to
maximize their inclusive fitness we're > golden! Human behavioral
ecologists have already > posited that such "work -arounds" must be employed
in
> order to allow for the high level of cooperation seen > in modern
societies. Amazingly, even behaviors very > costly to one's inclusive
fitness are theoretically > sustainable in a population via cultural group
> selection. This is extremely encouraging. It means > (to me,
anyway) that we can imagine even more > prosocial societies than those that
exist today. And > we certainly need not resign ourselves to any
> preordained gender roles. > My argument does no rely on males and
females > being essentially equal in all ways. They are not. > But we
have a plausible mechanism which circumvents > these pesky fears about male
vs. female differences
> frustrating social progress. And by no means am I > ; suggesting this
is the only mechanism by which we can > exact world improvement. >
Back to the original discussion . It has been > shown that cross-culturally
the more equitably public
> and domestic duties are distributed among males and > females the
less gender stratification exists. We > should work towards that ideal.
Women voting, gaining > more power, and entering the workforce has been
> categorically good, though a struggle all the way. > Thus, I consider
many more permanent stay-at-home > mothers than permanent stay -at-home
fathers as > distinctly counterproductive and undesirable . We can
> do a whole lot better. There, took me a while to get > to it, but
there it is. I greatly appreciate your > endurance . Any replies will be
relished. :-) > > -Erica > P.S. References on cultural group
selection available
> upon request. > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves ;-
- google://"Daniel Reeves" Reporter: Mr. Gandhi , what do you think of
Western Civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
------=_Part_7224_29736067.1130995109230--
|
