Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
From: chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa Chabot)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: envi-ornament
Message-ID: <659@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-May-84 23:45:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.659
Posted: Sat May 26 23:45:58 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:20:12 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 80

> Subject: Re: ET sex roles, request for clarification
> Posted: Sun May 13 11:41:13 1984
>
>   If a scientist were to do a study which tended to show there
> were structural differences between the sexes which helped to
> explain the domination of men in math and physics, this scientist
> would be immediately branded sexist. ...
> He has come up with a conclusion which is philosophically wrong and thus 
> cannot be [considered] valid.
>    I am certain that there will be those who will attack me
> for saying men are inherently better at math than women. 

The only offensive thing in Hughes's initial letter on this issue was his
assumption that from the start, no one is capable of being fair: the world
is going to reject the scientist's research, this newsgroup is going to
incorrectly interpret his (Hughes's) statements.  And yet, with these
close-minded preconceptions about the reception of the research and the
argument, Hughes's closes his letter with

> Let us study these differences with open minds.

It's all very well to urge the other person to have an open mind.
Although I know this is a typical human reaction and one that most of us
will experience, I feel it is an immature human reaction.  But moreover, 
I know it to be an inadequate tactic to take to convince a skeptical audience.
Skeptical audiences will react better to cogent arguments than to remarks
attempting to evoke guilt responses about closed minds.  I believe this
newsgroup to be a skeptical audience, on the average, on most topics--because
you'll always find some who disagree and are willing to discuss; if this
was a closed-minded audience there would be no point in mentioning a point
for discussion.

Accusing a skeptic of being closed-minded will probably be a self-fulfilling
prophecy--because the skeptic may very will decide to become closed-minded
about listening to the person who stated or insinuated this insult.  Even if
you fear that you may lose the argument, why, there's no need to go about
as if you thought that: if you think you're going to lose, you probably will.

Enough of this shilly-shallying!  Let's get down to facts.  I want facts.
I want to know when, where, who tried to do research and was ridiculed,
or was ignored, or who couldn't get funding because of the real reason that
the topic was considered wrong or dangerous or subversive.  If it hasn't
happened, how can we be decried for what might happen?  I want real facts
not the particularly offensive in the sometimes enlightening example of the
TQ research:

> Dr. Jones was dismissed due to widespread protest.  He was later
> found dead in his apartment (it appeared he had been killed by a
> poison dart fired from a blowpipe).

Is Hughes implying that there is a conspiracy to repress this kind of 
research?  Surely the conspiracy is not so competent as to keep from the
public press all mention of all such research and all mention of related
assassinations.  It is exceptionally offending to the intellect to read
the story that Dr. Jones was killed by a blow dart, with the earlier related 
deriding of Dr. Jones being a racist because of the derider's claim that 
Dr. Jones will cause to be exploited the lower TQ of some Africans--does this 
mean that Hughes believes that there is a conspiracy of women who gun down 
researchers (or is it just that they withhold sex or food :-) :-) ).

This kind of paranoia in net.women hasn't been here to kick around much since
Ken Arndt left us for net.flame.  This is not equate Hughes with Arndt,
since the former is always willing to further explain his point with
none of the equating of those who disagree to excrement or Hitler.

So, let's get up a list of the persecuted, of ridiculed real refereed research 
concerning any innate differences in ability between the sexes.  I'm going
to go track down what references have already been mentioned during discussion
of this topic.

Of course there's a conspiracy of women--why do you think we always get up to 
go to the bathroom together (to clean our handguns, of course :-) :-) :-) ).
Hey, why don't men get up to go to the bathroom together?


		Lisa S. Chabot

UUCP:	...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA:	...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail:    DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA  01752