Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!linda
From: linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists?
Message-ID: <332@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jul-86 04:59:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.332
Posted: Thu Jul 17 04:59:23 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 05:31:14 EDT
References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA
Lines: 153
Xref: watmath net.women:11386 net.sci:1282

In article <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> Doug Gwynn writes:
> 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 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.

*Government* certainly has some right to dictate what actions are permitted.
This is amply demonstrated in areas of civil and criminal law, including both
laws concerning the behavior of individuals and of corporations; and in
regulation of industry and commerce.  Or shall we dismantle all of these, too?
Is it unacceptable to include social goals as an area in which government is
permitted to act?  Then of course we must dismantle ALL welfare, public health
insurance, etc.  

> 	(2) Governmental action is desirable to countermand the
> 	results of people's wrong-thinking.

Governmental action is desirable in furthering societal goals.  Otherwise
government would be entirely unnecessary.

> 	(3) We can know what the "correct" social balance would
> 	be if there were no wrong-thinking.

We must assume *some* level of consensus, in order to operate at all as a
society.

> 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.  

Even when those others are in positions of power from which you, as member of 
some group, are systematically excluded:  that is, even when THEIR power denies 
YOUR freedom of choice???  No possibility of benefit; the consequences suffered
are from others' unethical (etc., etc.) decisions.  Think about it.

> 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.  

Drawing the line at PHYSICAL force is a very convenient device, allowing you to
sweep all the institutionalized inequities under the rug.  Fine for you, if
YOUR group has never been at the receiving end.

> [disclaimer regarding Libertarianism deleted]

> 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.

If you are consistently well-qualified, yet consistently denied the benefits
that would be expected as a result, then one possibility is that the game is
rigged.  I think that very many people have come to that conclusion.
Affirmative action is, in essence, an admission that the game is (was) rigged,
and a commitment to un-rig it.  Do you disagree with the assessment that it
was rigged?  Do you think that underachievement by blacks, women, etc., etc.
is based on their natural inferiority?  Or their being "by nature" unsuited
for certain pursuits (as a group, at least)?  Why was it necessary for the
game to be rigged in the first place?

> The proper role 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.

That includes the individuals whose aspirations are crushed by institutionalized
prejudice.

> 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.

There are, of course, examples of those who have overcome obstacles.  However,
that does not in itself justify the obstacles.  If ALL of your teachers in
elementary or high school make assumptions about you based on your race, gender
or whatever else, you have little recourse.  It is a fact that few limiting
assumptions are made about white males, as a class, in our culture.  Do you
disagree with this?  Do you disagree that this has profound effects?  Do you
admit the possibility?

> I recommend William Goldman's "The Princess Bride".  The world is
> simply NOT FAIR.  It's unrealistic to think it ought to be.

I don't know the book, but agree with your point that one should be realistic
and not expect the world to be "fair" (whatever that means).  It is definitely
true that one should not limit oneself because of this, nor should one spend
all of one's energy bemoaning it.  But one has the right, if not the duty, to
try and make it better.

> 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..

Yes, like in denying women the OPPORTUNITY of higher education; in denying
women souls; in denying women any place in politics; in denying them PERSONHOOD.
And then saying it's "nature".  And that their resulting status is NATURAL.
Try reading Marilyn French, "Beyond Power", to get some historical insight.

> In short, this is a matter for intellectual activism, not
> governmental action.  "Protect us from our protectors."

Yes, indeed, keep the government doing what it does best:  protecting the status
quo.  Don't, for heaven's sake, expect anyone with any power to DO anything
about it!  

-- 

"The sun is but an egg, that hatches great things"

Linda Mundy	{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda
		Relational Technology, Inc., Alameda, CA