Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!bloom-beacon!ora!ora!daemon
From: ROPERK%QUCDN.QueensU.CA@EVANS.UCAR.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men&women: same or different?
Message-ID: <90237.121722ROPERK@QUCDN.BITNET>
Date: 25 Aug 90 16:17:22 GMT
References: <82059@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Lines: 34
Approved: ambar@ora.com

Equivalence requires specification i.e. saying that men and women
are equivalent *period* is incorrect.  Men and women are
equivalent for purposes of voting; they are not equivalent
when it comes to heavy lifting, although a woman who can
lift x kilograms is certainly equivalent to a man who lift
x kg.

The problem here is partly one of semantics (equality vs equivalence),
but the hidden aspect is the propensity that people have to extrapolate
the qualities of individuals to select groups of which they are members.
It reduces the need to listen or think.  I suspect that the most
appropriate word here is "prejudice".

One can justifiably believe that women would be less likely to instigate
war in a gender reversed world, or even in one which would allow them to
take a large share of power.  HOWEVER, the point which is dutifully avoided
by most of those people which I have heard espouse this view is that
*attitudes toward women would have to change for this to become a
possibility, and this may alter attitudes of individual women*.  And
given that this is extrapolation, this affects the assumed opinions of
the group.

Gotta love selectively dynamic systems and bad mathematics ....

-------
Kim Roper
B.Sc.Eng  (Math. and Eng.)
Dept of Chem Eng, Queen's University

Bitnet/Netnorth: roperk@qucdn.queensu.ca

Be nice to Queen's CS -- they pay my net.bills.
If you want to abuse my department, you'll have to get in
  line behind me.