Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!uci-ics!tittle
From: mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Advocacy and What Is Advocated
Message-ID: <8910041915.AA05706@mimsy.UMD.EDU>
Date: 4 Oct 89 19:38:29 GMT
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 31
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

>Non-advocacy (or gender-blindness) means maintaining the status quo, and if
>that status quo discriminates against women, than non-advocacy means
>discriminating against women.

You are omitting the key portion of the phrase; I said "advocacy
*for*women*", not just any old advocacy.  It's the intent here that is
the problem, not the need for action.  Action which is in the
interests of women isn't necessarily in the interests of gender
equality.

Also,

>Treating unequals equally preserves the initial inequality. If gender
>inequality is an unacceptable state, then gender-blindness or non-advocacy
>CANNOT be a legitimate course of action.

I don't accept this characterization, because, in general, there is
more difference within a subpopulations than there is between
subpopulations (on social issues, that is).  If you are talking about
actions which have effects on specific individuals, then I suggest
that the comparisons be between specific individuals.  Even as a
relatively well-off male, there are many many females who are better
off than I.  If you are going to take this "treating unequals
unequally", then these women must yield advantage to me, even as I
would yield advantage to those less fortunate than I.  I see no reason
to yield to a more priveleged woman merely on the basis of her gender.

"Gender blindness" means acting on real inequalities.  Statistical
means and medians are not real.

Charley Wingate