Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <680@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 17:36:54 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.680
Posted: Thu Feb 20 17:36:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 05:14:08 EST
References: <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <660@rti-sel.UUCP> <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 116
Xref: linus net.women:8798 net.singles:9351

In article <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy  <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes:

>>...if you had made your comments about nonwhites,
>>most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction ...
>
>Hmmm, well I'm not sure I'd agree it's racist.  Nor am I sure that his
>reaction to his students is sexist.  

First of all, a disclaimer: I didn't intend to pick on the original
poster as a sexist, racist, or anything else. I think we're ALL
members of a society where sexism and racism are so commonplace that
it's difficult for any of us to claim complete purity of thought. Let
him who is without guilt ...

I'm not sure either about the racism of the attitude I described, but 
let's think about it some more since the 'sexist' or 'racist' accusation 
seems to be made in this group from time to time. Observing a situation 
in your environment in which two groups perform differently on the 
average and making statements about the statistical likelihood of a 
group's member acting in a certain way may not be a sexist/racist act 
in and of itself. But we have to talk about this act of observation in 
context: that is, what assumptions and attitudes bring a person to 
automatically make the observation on meeting a person of a certain 
group? And we can also talk about the results of making the observation: 
does it or doesn't it affect the person's future interactions with the 
members of the group and h/er attitudes and assumptions about members of 
the group?

What are sexism and racism, anyway? It seems to me they involve the
assumption that a person has a certain set of capabilities based on
h/er membership in a group. The distinction between making a blanket
assumption about ALL members in a group and a qualified assumption
about a person's statistical likelihood of possessing certain 
capabilities is not at all clear to me. Sexism/racism involve an
assessment of observed behavior (I'm here developing my own thoughts on
what sexism/racism involve, not quoting some authority; feel free to
argue against this, but don't ask for sources 'cause there ain't none
:-), an implied reason for the behavior being different for the two 
(or more) groups, and an action taken based on the observation of
behavior.

The original poster's "daemon" certainly was making an assessment of
observed behavior. For him to measure the sexism (if any) present 
in his assessment, he has to ask himself a couple of questions:

   1. Is the assessment important to his functioning as a teacher
      in some way? If so, how, and if not, why did he feel it was 
      important to make this assessment? 
   2. Did he feel his observation was colored in any way by
      assumptions that may be inherently sexist?

The thing is, the poster didn't give a reason for the behavior being
different ("well, we all KNOW what women are like..."), or suggest
that any action be taken based on the behavior he observed. So I don't
think his observation was sexist at all. It's the kind of observation
that could be USED by sexists to reinforce their model for female
behavior, however; and that's where the real danger lies, I think.

>I think it's the matter of degree
>that troubles me.  I know folks from outside of Detroit who've *never*
>seriously spoken to a black who think that Harold Washington has no
>business whatsoever being mayor of Chicago because he's black.  (Do
>they care that the city of Chicago is 70% black?  Nope.)  *That's* what
>I call racist.  ...

Well, it's certainly obvious racism. But I think racism can take much
subtler and insidious forms; consider the Jensen and Shockley
'hypotheses' about the inferior performance of blacks on I.Q. tests.
 
>...  Recognizing trends in one's
>experience is recognizing trends in one's experience.  It does become
>prejudice, however, when that which is in the past influences one's
>expectations in new situations, i.e. when one "pre-judges" someone
>else.  Is that an ideal reaction?  Nope.  Is it a reasonable one?
>Well, I don't know.  It's certainly been my past experience that it
>happens, and based on that I expect it to continue. [B-)]

The only person I hope to change in my life is MYSELF. If I can
recognize my own prejudice and change my own attitudes, I'll be a
better person for it. But if I hear other people spouting what I
perceive to be sexism or racism, you'd better believe I'll let them
know I don't want that kind of crap spouted in my presence (no, I'm
not referring at all to the original poster).
 
>It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a
>secretary is female to be sexist.  But is it really sexist, or is it
>"merely" prejudicial?  I think of "sexist" as that which denigrates or
>oppresses a person (esp. a woman) based on gender.  ...

The problem is, I think, that the assumption does lead to oppression
in that a potential employer will tend to pigeonhole inexperienced
people for certain positions based on prejudice. And once you're
pegged as a secretary it may be difficult to move up to a real
challenging position like 'Girl Friday' (hey, that's a joke, folks!).

>And (as you're all wondering by now) is it an important distinction?
>Beats me.  

Well, I do think it's important, because I think it's the uncritical
acceptance of these assumptions by people in power that LEADS to
things like oppression.

>...I don't know about
>turning off "guesser-daemons" tho.  I mean, expecting that which has
>happened repeatedly before to happen again is pretty thoroughly ingrained
>in us.  Learning language and cultural idiosyncracies couldn't happen
>without the trait.  All of science is based on it.  I'd be real surprised
>if anybody could truly turn it off in just a few of these particular
>situations.

Ah, but as I've pointed out, one's attitudes toward one's own
"daemons" can be changed. And that's the path to reducing one's own
sexist/racist tendencies, I think. At least for me.
 

                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly