Lisa, I must say I find your comments extremely insightful, and I think 
that in many ways you are, so to speak, "on the money" (no pun intended). 
I recall having read an anthropological study (please don't ask me to cite 
it; I really don't feel like rummaging through my archives:) about the 
way little boys and girls interact during play-time. The researchers 
observed that boys tended to form hierarchies very quickly, with 
implications for authority, etc. Girls, on the other hand, typically had a 
much more egalitarian social structure emerge. (... I really hope I am 
doing justice to the work...)

Now, the implications of these results to the daily experiences like the 
one Lisa had related below are clear: proving that you are right is of 
utmost importance for a guy, as this would be essential for his place in 
the hierarchy. Thus, we generally see socialized _overconfidence_ and 
_ego_ in guys: they are essential for success! Observe, that these are 
also not what we typically think of as good personal qualities in a human 
being. Indeed, it seems far more appropriate to value humility and 
open-mindedness -- distinctly "feminine" characteristics in today's world.

Furthermore, even if such positive (imho) personality traits are far more 
common in girls, they are absolutely counterproductive if you enter the 
corporate world. Executives are not valued for their humility, but for 
their decisiveness and confidence (ego?). Thus, a woman who wants to 
succeed in this world must absorb these "masculine" traits and, often, 
renege the "feminine" ones. This is, perhaps, the cost of equality of men 
and women with respect to our cultural norms. In this sense, I must admit 
that liberal feminism is unappealing to me as an ideal. I would much 
rather the process go the other way (e.g., mass adoption of feminine 
character traits by men). Alas, that seems unrealistic. Interestingly, 
the implication is that some forms of radical feminism (i.e., those that 
do not call for destruction of all masculine) have, in my mind, much 
greater merit. I believe that the ultimate goal, both individual and 
social, should be happiness (per Aristotle's Ethics). A society that 
strives towards other ideals for their own sake may in the end come out 
very miserable indeed.

Eugene

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Lisa Hsu wrote:

> it would be nice if open-mindedness had value. that's one of the things i
> look for in people to love and be friends with.
>
> but in the corporate world, or working world, or whatever...there is a
> premium on being "right." and people are more likely to believe you're right
> if you yourself present that you believe you are right. and that has nothing
> to do with gender, both men and women are more likely to believe someone who
> says something with confidence (bluster?) than someone who hesitates. i
> suppose this is part of the battle of the mind talked about before...but
> that's a serious change to enact in all people.
>
> i once got into a discussion with a guy about a puzzle. he had said he found
> some property X about the puzzle interesting. i said, "i didn't get the same
> thing...do you think you could maybe go through your steps and tell me how
> exactly you got that? i'm curious..." in essence, being very open to the
> possibility that i was wrong in the way i approached this. this had the
> interesting effect however, of him being in the elevated position and me in
> the lower, where towards the end, he actually said, "i just thought this was
> the easy part. just do the steps i told you and you'll see."
>
> however, i WAS right...and it was only when i just said, "your'e completely
> missing that X !=Y in every case. but we dont' have to keep talking abougt
> this, i'm sure i'm right now."
>
> he came back with an emai later..."your [sic] right."
>
> don't mistake me for saying this was a sexist exchange or anything. i'm just
> saying, as a person, when i come into a discussion open to the possibility
> i'm wrong, then othe rpeople may assume i'm wrong and they're right. i
> wondered whether the exchange would have not degenerated into him saying "i
> don't get why you don't get this" if i had come on strong, like, "you're
> wrong about your conclusion, that's not actually true" whether he would have
> been on his heels defending his position rather than me. anywya...i will say
> that certain aspects of this exchange can be typical between a man and a
> woman.
>
> however...i think his bluster was actually more embarrassing to him than
> anything because he had already taken several strong stands that he was
> correct, only to be found wrong in the end. so maybe bluster has a delayed
> negative effect. like bush blustering his way into iraq and only now are
> people realizing he's just full of crap.
>
> lisa
>
> On 11/6/05, Victoria Li Fossum   wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it is very humble, reasonable, and open-minded of Laurie to
>> present disclaimers with her opinions. If those qualities are "feminine"
>> rather than "masculine", then that is one more way in which the world
>> could benefit by becoming more feminine.
>>
>> However, that is clearly not the way to get ahead in the masculine world.
>> One reason people hated John Kerry so much, even those who respected him
>> ideologically, is that he was always willing to allow for some gray areas
>> surrouding the important issues. Bush, on the other hand, blustered right
>> ahead with his opinions with 100% conviction, independently of the extent
>> to which they were based in fact. No matter your political allegiance,
>> you can't deny that this conviction was a factor that worked in Bush's
>> favor in the previous election.
>>
>> So, is the answer for women to be more like men, to fit into the masculine
>> world precisely the way men do? I think not, and that is why I am not a
>> liberal feminist--instead I would rather see the world change, but I
>> understand that this is unlikely to happen.
>>
>> -Victoria
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Melanie Reeves wrote:
>>
>>> This response helps me understand exactly why I agree with the ideas of
>> equal opportunities for women, yet have no desire, in fact negative desire,
>> to call myself a feminist. It's the same reason I don't call myself anything
>> really; a republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic. I don't like
>> labels. I like to simply decide how I feel per issue. The only label I'll
>> take is "reasonablist", I like that.
>>>
>>> I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making disclaimers about her response
>> is clearly a way of 1) showing humbleness and plurality of opinion, as James
>> mentions as a possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a discussion
>> about a subject she's not well read on. It's very possible that someone's
>> response could change her opinion, so she's showing up front that's she's
>> not 100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be in general - humble and
>> open-minded.
>>>
>>> Melanie
>>>
>>> James Mickens   wrote:
>>> What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it
>>> trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can do
>>> and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a somewhat
>>> different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that should be
>>> cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist goal
>>> some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists trying
>>> to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
>>> Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly
>>> gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that
>>> the "better" way to make a point is to use the stereotypically male
>>> voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However, one
>>> could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates humbleness and an
>>> openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of feminism to get
>>> women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the
>>> inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me.
>>> In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the extent to which
>>> "feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability of
>>> human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which gendered
>>> differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
>>> example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of professionalism
>>> in society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive
>>> consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of
>>> intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women must fit
>>> into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize."
>>> Presumably, the word "consumption" was modified with "excessive" in a
>>> pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly male
>>> trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait? In positing the
>>> existence of one form of intelligence that is overvalued, we
>>> implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female" intelligence
>>> that is undervalued. But is this female intelligence *intrinsically*
>>> linked with the biological condition of being female, or is an
>>> artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this time? By
>>> saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
>>> seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female
>>> characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable
>>> male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men and women are in
>>> fact essentially different at their cores. If this is true, then
>>> should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate but
>>> equivalent?
>>>
>>> Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she
>>> directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
>>> left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
>>> live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man can." I
>>> agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people comfortable with
>>> themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
>>> equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
>>> adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective, it's
>>> unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever completely go
>>> away. It's true that notions of beauty are socially constructed, but
>>> just because they're imaginary doesn't mean that people will stop
>>> daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness---this is
>>> just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy ideals of
>>> attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and less
>>> self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
>>> "radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering
>>> goal which is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered
>>> aesthetics. Once again, I think that the feminism should be
>>> formulated in terms of making people comfortable with themselves, not
>>> in terms of eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity.
>>> The former is acheivable, the latter is not.
>>>
>>> I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though (from
>>> my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women. Instead of
>>> describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "reasonable."
>>> This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame the
>>> debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
>>> public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases
>>> such as "radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender
>>> paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk in plain terms of
>>> fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss gendered
>>> differences in the salary received for equivalent jobs, there's no
>>> reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist complex, ossified
>>> patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal---simply
>>> put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money than a man for the
>>> same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist ideology, it's
>>> an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the name
>>> "feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our allies.
>>> Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at
>>> semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral
>>> Politics." Think about what used to be called tax "cuts"---the
>>> popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans stopped using the word
>>> "cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more difficult to
>>> say that one is against "tax relief." But note that in introducing
>>> this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes are
>>> a burden, when one could argue that they are really the
>>> responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society. In
>>> terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to support
>>> our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the quality of
>>> the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist" (or
>>> even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive,
>>> particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as generic
>>> fairness issues.
>>>
>>> I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
>>> theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of
>>> hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why
>>> things are the way they are. I also realize that as intellectuals, we
>>> have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
>>> necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses. Nevertheless,
>>> by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e., by accepting
>>> that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think we
>>> get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and
>>> men too!). Then, by framing "feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
>>> that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we have a
>>> better chance of actually improving the world, as opposed to
>>> alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies.
>>>
>>> ~j
>>>
>>>
>>
>