Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 11:28:43 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1677
Posted: Tue Feb 18 11:28:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 03:44:14 EST
References: <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <660@rti-sel.UUCP>
Reply-To: Beth Christy  <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth>
Organization: Wits' End
Lines: 126
Xref: watmath net.women:9077 net.singles:10323

[If this line is missing, please inform your system administrator.]

In article <660@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>In article <11785@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ...(Daz) writes:
>
>>...
>>My experience after about 10 years in that role is that {male|nonblack}
>>students are far more likely to be excited about mathematics,
>>really gung-ho over the subject matter.  ...
>>I have an internal
>>guesser-daemon who assigns differing probabilities to the student's
>>chances of being gung-ho, according to the student's {sex|race}.  ...
>>And besides, I couldn't make the guesser-daemon go away if I
>>wanted to: it's based on experience.
>
>I've inserted a reference to blacks in addition to your reference to
>women to make a point: if you had made your comments about nonwhites,
>most people would agree that it reflected a racist reaction to a
>situation (note I'm not saying anything yet about your handling of the
>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.  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.  My uncle has *never* listened with respect to a woman
in his life, and he thinks as long woman insist on wearing pants and
non-frilly blouses that he's perfectly justified in referring to
chairMEN.  Women in pants are clearly forfeiting their womanhood, after
all.  *That's* what I call sexist.

The fellow you quote clearly doesn't fall into this category.  He seems
to have shown respect for his female students, and states that he is in
fact quite pleased when he finds an enthusiastically mathematical
female.  His "problem" is that his past experience is influencing his
expectations in current situations.  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-)]

So it's prejudicial.  But is it sexist?  You state:
>An American who
>hears the job description "secretary" is more likely to think of a
>woman than of a man (although as a coworker pointed out, this
>certainly wasn't true in the 19th century). No matter what our race,
>creed, or sex, we've ALL been guilty of knee-jerk racist and/or sexist
>thoughts from time to time.

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.  Is assuming that a
secretary is female (while being equally responsive and open to male
secretaries) denigrating or oppressive?  After all, a secretary is a
responsible and quite necessary position.  Is the expectation that a
female will probably be less enthusiastic about math (while not doing
*anything* to ensure that it's true) denigrating or oppressive?
They're both clearly prejudicial (in that an assessment is being made
before all the current facts are available), but are they sexist?

And (as you're all wondering by now) is it an important distinction?
Beats me.  [Sometimes I think I just post 'cause my fingers like to
type.  B-)]  But anyway, I recall the Danieal (original poster) asking
for input to this "past experience" thing so here's mine:  I don't think
your "guesser-daemon" is particularly unique to you (I *do* think it's
refreshingly unique that you're concerned about it), nor do I think it's
sexist.  But I do think it's prejudicial.  What to do about it?
Recognize that you're "pre-judging" the females (and perhaps the males)
in your classes, that you're making judgements about them before you
know them personally.  And then make a conscious effort to be open to
what's really there, instead of what you expect to be there.  If you're
already doing that (it sounds like you might be), well then I think
that's best you can do.  I wish I could think of a specific way to make
the feelings disappear altogether (gosh, do I wish I find that answer!),
but I can't, so I think dealing with them head on is the best we've got.

Now back to the article at hand:

>Given that, can we
>eliminate these racist and sexist reactions entirely from our life?
>Saying that it's impossible is claiming that in this particular case a
>set of reactions can't be unlearned or replaced with another set of
>reactions. Is this so? Is it not possible for the addictive person to
>learn a new set of behaviors to replace the old? Of course it is: the
>fat person who eats because s/he's lonely or has problems can learn to
>do away with the loneliness or find other ways of dealing with the
>problems. Why should it be impossible for you to make the "guesser-daemon"
>go away if you want to, even if it's based on experience?

Well, it's possible for an addictive personality to learn a new set of
behaviors, and they can change their attitudes towards their *addic-
tion*, but I'm not sure it's possible for them to cure their addiction.
After all, alcoholics and other substance abusers can never have another
drink/hit again or they go back off the deep end.  Of course, people with
eating disorders clearly don't stop eating forever.  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.

>As to dealing with the "guesser-daemon," you say that you don't feel
>it really affects the way you deal with people. As I've said, we've
>all had to deal with our own "guesser-daemons" from time to time. The
>key thing is RECOGNIZING when we're trying to stereotype people and
>being aware of our tendency to do so. You might try, for example, to
>go out of your way to make sure you grade papers and assign final
>grades fairly without regard to sex since you known this "daemon" is
>working away somewhere out of reach of your current awareness. 

This I agree with.  (In fact, I seem to have simply reworded it above.
But it took me so long to write it that I'm not gonna delete it now.
My apologies for being redundant.)

-- 

--JB     ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

	 Sylvia says `A real lady never asks: "Was *what* good for me?".
			      ("I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention.")'