On = 11/2/05, Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu> wrote:

Rock on!  Can you define a couple terms for our listeners:
&nb= sp; * proximate mechanisms
   * inclusive fitness
&nb= sp; * cultural group selection (references welcome, but I'll go on re= cord as
     suspecting this concept to be bogus -- = fortunately I don't think your
     argument relies on it)

I don't have tim= e 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 fascinatin= g.  This was
written 20 years ago and there are a few areas wh= ere 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 reasonabl= y intelligent and observant
> individuals... we simply do not see the= injustices claimed
> by modern-day "feminists". What we ha= ve seen and experienced
> is probably the "utopia" dreamed of by the feminists who=
> fought so long and hard and claim that the battle still
> co= ntinues... where? In undergrad and grad school (EE and OR)
> I saw no= discrimination . . .
> My friend (a woman) . . .
> who works in Marketing for medic= al products has seen no
> discrimination. . . .
> Since I've be= en working here I've seen no evidence
> of discrimination. When we he= ar feminists make claims as to the
> horrible world we live in and the tremendous injustices
> do= ne to women in it, we look around and wonder what planet
> they are s= peaking of... it certainly does not resemble
> how we perceive the US= A in the year 1986... it does resemble
> the USA in the past, but that is history.

We won! &nbs= p;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 lan= d.

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 i= n
government at the state and local levels) ensures that Lincoln's rheto= ric
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. &nb= sp;American labor unions
have at last realized the dignity and importance of the female worker;<= br>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
re= sponsibility and right of both parents.  Men in great numbers hav= e taken
up the call for decent and afordable day care because the need f= or 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 th= e 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 b= asis.

The military establishment has ceased to coerce young people o= n the basis
of sex.  Young women who want to serve their country for a ti= me or make a
career of the military are no longer shunted into auxilliar= y support
groups that have little to do with the real business of the mi= litary.
Young men who do not want to go into the military are not in danger of<= br>being forced.

The fundamentalist religious right has reverted to = being a religious
revival, and is no longer an anti-feminist political f= orce.  They are
saving souls instead of bombing abortion clinics, lobbying against day<= br>care legislation, and preventing birth control from being included in ai= d
packages to starving third world countries.  The Roman Catho= lic church has
relented on the issue of a male only celebate clergy. Since their
he= irarchy is no longer forced to regard women primarily as temptation,
the= y can see them as fellow human beings.  Consequently the church n= o
longer takes political stands on issues like divorce, abortion, and bi= rth
control.

American schools have ceased to be institutions that ru= dely push or subtly
cajole our children into old fashioned sex roles.&nb= sp; 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 mista= ke.  The
retraction is even now being typeset.  The newspaper intervie= w I saw last
month with some Minnesota teacher who was up for a major te= aching award --
he didn't really say that boys were easier to teach beca= use 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 dema= nd he be
denied his award (as they would surely have done had he made so= me similar
remark about blacks) because they knew it was a mistake.  We'= re all
waiting confidantly for the correction to be published.

An= d it's so wonderful to know that in my own life I can relax and enjoy
th= e feminist Utopia.  Tomorrow when I arrive at work, I will no lon= ger
find an engineering company that employes hundreds of engineers -- and = has
a growing staff of female engineers who can all go out to lunch toge= ther
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 becau= se
they have no sense of teamwork -- probably, he says, because they nev= er
played team sports in school.  I'll never again go into a mee= ting 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 twe= nty
ratio I've been used to -- and, of course, the support staff of nurs= es,
clerks, and technicians will be half men.  How wonderful i= t will be not to
have to worry any more about the cub scouts turning my boy into an
u= nthinking 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<= br>have him say "But I wasn't talking about YOU, Carole." as if t= hat made
everything all right.

God, the more I think about it, the more w= onderful it seems to be able to
live my life in the feminist Utopia.&nbs= p; Free at last, free at last . . .
Huh?  What? &nbs= p;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 me= an, 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?

        &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;      Carole Ashmore

--- \/   FROM Erica O'Connor AT 05.11.02 1= 0:52 (Today)   \/ ---

>     Thank y= ou to everyone who has responded to my
> comments and participated in= this debate thus far.  I
> feel as though it is far from r= esolved, 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 sta= nd revisiting.
>     Comments such as the followi= ng really stuck hard
> in my throat.
> "I agree that there will probably alway= s be more women
> who are better parents than their husbands than vic= e
> versa."--Dave
>     Dr. Reeves als= o expressed the belief that more
> stay-at-home mothers than stay-at-home fathers would
> be &q= uot;in perfect conformity with mammalian instincts,
> social structur= e, and the interest of the next
> generation."
> &nbs= p;   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 absolutel= y *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 societ= y for that matter.  Female
> mammals nurse their young.&nbs= p; 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 tim= e they sniffle?  And that she must choose
> between this an= d a significant career?  Doubtful.  And
> again, alone, the mere existence of breasts gets us
> nowher= e (except maybe backwards) in moral argument.
> Remember that rape ca= n also be considered a "standard
> mammalian instinct".&nbs= p; Please, please don't make me go
> on about the naturalistic fallacy; I will bore
> everyone fo= r sure.
>     My original hypothesis was that ind= ividuals may
> be more or less suited for child rearing but this
&= gt; quality is not necessarily linked with the sex of the
> parent.  And I stick by it unless I'm proved
> oth= erwise.  I dug up a relevant family study for
> everyone's = enjoyment.  The PDF is attached.  The paper
> com= pares the well-being of children in single-father
> versus single-mother family structures.  The
> res= earchers first give an informative overview of some
> of the other wo= rk done on this topic.  If nothing else
> this should convi= nce us that the issue is anything but
> settled in favor of female parents' "superiority".
&g= t; This particular study does give good support for the
> idea that m= en and women make equally good parents.
> Interestingly, plenty of ge= nder stereotypes related to
> child-rearing gain no support.  For instance, male
&g= t; single-parents aren't better disciplinarians as some
> expected.&n= bsp; Just because some trait is traditionally or
> historically = associated with a particular gender
> doesn't mean that it is immutably so.
>   &nb= sp; Analogously, I would need to see some empirical
> evidence in sup= port of the claim that women are not as
> "biologically suited&q= uot; 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
> biologi= cally bring home the bacon"--something stated
> outright or at l= east tacitly accepted by many thus
> far.  (I wince at that for other reasons as well. &= nbsp;I'd
> much rather bring home the tofu.)  Granted, in t= his
> 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 Michi= gan
> 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. &= nbsp;I'm
> sorry to pick on you, Dr. Reeves, but Dave is clearly
&= gt; not pounding on open doors.  Pointing to a small
> hand= ful 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 pro= nounce that racial discrimination is
> entirely a thing of the past j= ust 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 a= gainst women in the workplace and in
> general.  There's plenty of fodder for discussion
>= ; here.
> http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2005/Aug/hour2_082605.htm= l
> htt= p://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
> de= pendant 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.&n= bsp; This should at least be an open
> question--especially con= sidering all the obstacles
> flung in the path of women trying to gai= n power.  But
> regardless of the answer we are still free to decide
> objec= tively what we want society to be like.
>     Now= for the perscriptive part of my argument.
> But first I must lay a b= it of groundwork.  Human
> beings are indisputably ruled by their biological
> composit= ions.  In as sense this is practically a
> truism; however,= it is also well known that behavioral
> expression is environmentall= y contextual to a large
> extent.  Lucky for us we are sufficiently self-aware
= > to purposefully manipulate our own environment (for
> our purpos= es I mean primarily our cultural
> environment) to suit our needs.&nb= sp; We are not stuck
> embracing our so-called "biological tendencies" for
&= gt; better or worse, nor do we need to think of ourselves
> as shovin= g 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 manufactu= red.  So long as these
> cultural constructions effectively= work around,
> manipulate, and cater to humans' proximate mechanisms
> desi= gned to maximize their inclusive fitness we're
> golden!  H= uman behavioral ecologists have already
> posited that such "wor= k-arounds" must be employed in
> order to allow for the high level of cooperation seen
> in m= odern societies.  Amazingly, even behaviors very
> costly t= o one's inclusive fitness are theoretically
> sustainable in a popula= tion via cultural group
> selection.  This is extremely encouraging.  It= means
> (to me, anyway) that we can imagine even more
> prosoc= ial societies than those that exist today.  And
> we certai= nly need not resign ourselves to any
> preordained gender roles.
>     My argum= ent does no rely on males and females
> being essentially equal in al= l ways.  They are not.
> But we have a plausible mechanism = which circumvents
> these pesky fears about male vs. female differenc= es
> frustrating social progress.  And by no means am I
&g= t; suggesting this is the only mechanism by which we can
> exact worl= d improvement.
>     Back to the original discuss= ion.  It has been
> shown that cross-culturally the more eq= uitably public
> and domestic duties are distributed among males and
> female= s the less gender stratification exists.  We
> should work = towards that ideal.  Women voting, gaining
> more power, an= d 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 s= tay-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.  :-)
><= br>> -Erica
> P.S.  References on cultural group selecti= on available
> upon request.
>

--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  = ;- -  google://"Daniel Reeves"

Reporter: Mr. Gan= dhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi:   I think it would be a good idea.