Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ora!ora!daemon
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men & women: same or different?
Summary: What a can of worms this uncovers!
Message-ID: <12422@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 90 21:46:11 GMT
References: <9009112047.AA09791@Arezzo.ORC.Olivetti.Com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 86
Approved: ambar@ora.com

I wrote:
>> If, for example, the innate psychological differences between men
>> and women are so great that they explain the phenomenon of war,
>> then they are certainly large enough to explain a gap in the
>> success of the two genders in the business world.  But when faced
>> with the disparity in earnings between women and men, do those
>> feminists who think that women speak with a "different voice"
>> leave room for the possibility that this disparity in earnings is
>> a natural result of it?  No, they do not.  Here, they insist that
>> any difference is the result of unfair discrimination.
>>
>> Feh!  You cannot have it both ways. ...

I would like to amplify this a bit.  There are many ethical stances
that assume neither innate equality between the sexes, nor innate
differences between them.  A liberal in the classical mode might argue
that we should root out unfair kinds of discrimination wherever we
find them, but that we should be satisfied with what group differences
remain after this is done.  My critique was aimed primarily against
those who argue both lines, choosing the one that is most convenient
at the time.

Ms. Parcel describes an ethical stance where neither assumption is
made:

In article <9009112047.AA09791@Arezzo.ORC.Olivetti.Com>, jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) writes:
> I take it both ways for working purposes.  Before flaming, let me
> explain. 
>
> I think there will turn out to be innate differences, when all the
> socialization is stripped off.  I hope these differences are smaller
> than they appear now. ...
> 
> I *hope* that most of women's apparently-natural peacefulness is
> born of the experience of childraising ...
> 
> I *hope* that a most of men's apparent will to dominate is a result 
> of a cultural paradigm requiring men to control women so they know 
> which kids are theirs. ...
>
> But, even if it turns out that some of this *is* inborn, IF THE
> BUSINESS WORLD IS DESIGNED BY MEN FOR MEN, then it is likely designed
> to optimize for male traits, and I OBJECT TO THIS.  It *is* a form of
> discrimination to create a world that witholds food and shelter and
> freedom from those who do not match the traits of the group in
> control. ...

How one argues for something affects the particular results that one
reaches.  If one is seeking economic equality between the sexes,
regardless of the source of inequality, then instead of
anti-discrimination and affirmative action measures, one might lean
toward more direct palliatives, such as a gender sensitive taxing
scheme or other redistributive program.

If Ms. Parcel is going to base her recommendations on egalitarianism,
she also needs to consider the broader implications of this.  Even
more than the business world being "designed" by men for men, it is
"designed" by smart, ambitious people for the benefit of smart,
ambitious people.  Despite the problems in measuring native
intelligence, there is no doubt that some of us are born with more
than our fair share, and others of us will never be able to do much
more than menial work, regardless of educational opportunity.  Should
we seek economic equality between the smart and the slow?  There is
now quite a bit of evidence that depression and other non-cognitive
mental traits are also inherited.  It is plain that chronic depression
can severely hamper one's business aspirations.  Should we seek
economic equality between the depressed and those with a normal
emotional framework?

For what differences in traits and abilities should a social system
compensate?  Is there any reason that those associated with gender
should receive better treatment than others?  What form should the
compensation take and how far should it be extended?  And finally, how
much is one willing that all should suffer so that the desired
equality is achieved?  (In a social system, there is little difference
between "encouraging" a kind of behavior "exploiting" it for the
general good.  As economists are fond of saying, one gets more of the
kind of behavior that is rewarded, and less of the kind that is
taxed.)

Ms. Parcel does indeed escape the problem of determining whether
gender differences are innate or cultural.  But she trades it for a
series of general social problems, some of which have plagued
political philosophers for generations.

Russell