Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!husc6!yale!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!cheryl From: cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists? Message-ID: <665@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 11:51:14 EDT Article-I.D.: batcompu.665 Posted: Mon Jul 21 11:51:14 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 07:16:48 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <145@sbcs.UUCP> <2213@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 66 Xref: watmath net.women:11490 net.sci:1330 In article <2213@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: > >Well, to make the point in a way that you may find somewhat offensive, >it is believed by many sex researchers that the nature of the male >sex drive is different from that of the female, and there are many >biological mechanisms involved that are well known to differ, so this >is probably correct. I suspect that in an absolutely free society there >would be more female prostitutes than male prostitutes, due to higher >market demand. Prostitution is certainly a sex-linked profession. > >I don't know for sure, but I also suspect that a natural balance would >find a different percentage of dark-skinned races employed in outdoor >labor than exists in the population as a whole. > >I know of no reason to expect a significant imbalance in professions on >the basis of natural inequitable distribution of intelligence among >races or sexes. Read Strunk & White. If you want to say that you think women and blacks are stupid, say that you think women and blacks are stupid. >There does seem to be a natural difference in average strength, and >women float better than men due to the subcutaneous layer of fat, etc. >Some professions may naturally favor certain characteristics such as >these. My belief is that it is proper to discriminate among individuals >on the basis of demonstrable job qualifications (and that fair treatment >*requires* such discrimination), but not by considering an individual as >a member of a stereotyped "class". Oh really. So if teachers and faculties, (by dint of discriminatory treatment of their students) produce only white males who are "qualified" then discrimination is *fair* and no outcry is to be raised against unfair educational practices (such as requiring female students to be teaching assistants for four years of graduate study then claiming that "it's their fault" when little research progress is made, while giving research jobs and important scientific problems to their male students...). If you read the original article, you would know that we started off discussing the influence of culture and teacher's attitudes on the performance and interests of students. >It is obvious to anyone who has watched children develop that not all >individuals are created equal. It is obvious to anyone who has watched children in a classroom with J. Random Teacher that individuals are treated differently on the basis of sex and race--regardless of performance, interest and natural endowment. >There is much other evidence of this >too. You may indeed prefer to believe otherwise, but that doesn't >change reality. >(At this point the old-guard philosophers usually rush in to attack >the idea that there is such a thing as an objective reality. Let's >ignore any such diversionary tactics.) Your view of reality is shallow, looking only at the effects, and since those effects favor you, Mr. H. Awnkie, you have no need to look at the causes. Can you spell "Self-Serving"? Cheryl