Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!husc6!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists? Message-ID: <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 06:30:57 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2064 Posted: Thu Jul 10 06:30:57 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jul-86 03:20:05 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 85 Xref: watmath net.women:11219 net.sci:1211 In article <320@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >... How will this happen? There are plenty of racists >and sexists out there, and to simply say that people should judge each >other as individuals does not make it happen. How about some proposals >for positive action? I hadn't intended to say anything further on this subject, but since Jeff has finally started sounding reasonable, perhaps a response is in order. I do deplore all kinds of irrationality, of which racism and sexism are but two examples. The problem I have with the demands for "positive action" are that they presuppose certain things that I don't think are correct: (1) One has the right to dictate what ideas others are permitted to act upon. (2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the results of people's wrong-thinking. (3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would be if there were no wrong-thinking. On (1): Human beings' survival depends, among other things, on the quality of their mental processes. For the same reason that children become spoiled by over-protective parents, people who are not allowed to make their own decisions, act on them, and benefit or suffer from the consequences WILL NOT LEARN. In order to legitimately claim the right to make your OWN decisions, you must permit others the FREEDOM to make theirs, whether you agree with them or not. Only when actions directly affect the freedom of others is there a need to consider rules of ethics and legal protections. I believe a rational code of ethics draws the line precisely at the point of initiation of the use of physical force to coerce another individual. (NOTE: I am NOT espousing a Libertarian position! Today's Libertarian movement is more a front for anti-authoritarians than a movement that recognizes the fundamental worth of the individual. Until the culture has a favorable climate for an idea, it's premature to politicize it.) On (2): The way to counter bad ideas is with good ones. If you really believe (as I do) that categorizing individuals primarily on the basis of inessential characteristics (such as sex, race, or nose size for most professions) is at best ill-advised and perhaps even unethical, then by all means attempt to convert the wrong-thinkers to a better idea by rational persuasion. This may be combined with "activist" measures such as organizing protests, refusing to buy products, or any other non-coercive measure. If you really have good ideas, sell the ideas. If you have to force people to go along with them, because they can't be persuaded, then one possibility is that you haven't understood them clearly enough yourself to make a convincing case for them. The proper r^ole of government in this is to protect the rights of the individual. That includes the individuals that you think are mistaken, so long as they're not threatening physical force. Sure, you have the right to freely seek employment, but just as surely a potential employer has the right to turn you down, if the two of you don't agree that your mutual interests are served by the coalition. If a professor implies that your sex should not be in his class, then perhaps you've made a mistake in attending that university (try complaining to the management, or attend anyway and learn the subject in spite of the professor; many of us have had to do that, even when the only problem was that the professor was plain incompetent). Stop whining that the world owes you respect, and go out and EARN its respect. There are too many examples of individuals who have overcome professional obstacles for one to use the obstacles as an excuse for not achieving. I recommend William Goldman's "The Princess Bride". The world is simply NOT FAIR. It's unrealistic to think it ought to be. On (3): It is not proven that there is absolutely no *natural* influence of sex, race, etc. on profession. Indeed, I can think of several possible natural causal correlations. However, this is really beside the point, since even if we were smart enough to know all the factors, there is nothing that can be done to legislate a "natural" balance without harming individual freedom of choice. On the other hand, natural forces are very powerful, so in the long run they will win out, if allowed to operate freely. A natural balance can be forestalled indefinitely by active manipulation by intelligent creatures, but if you're in favor of a natural balance why would you do that? The folly of trying to "help" nature has been shown in many examples.. In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not governmental action. "Protect us from our protectors."