Re: Judaism, evolution, and science in general

ey.markov@xxxxxxxxx (Yisroel Markov) writes:

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Don Levey
> <Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> >>
> >Well, at least part of the discussion was whether or not we could
> >term 'racist' a statement that one particular group of people has
> >an innate ability to understand a concept, an ability that people
> >non-genetically-linked to this group can never have and thus those people
> >will never understand the concept under discussion.
>
> Close. I would say "relate to" rather than "understand." Personally, I
> strongly suspect that religiosity (for lack of a better term) is a
> function of one's psychological makeup a lot more than, say, of one's
> upbringing or exposure to information.
>
Hmm. I'll have to check the posts. I thought that Jacko had, at least
once, used the word "understand" - though "relate to" make make a little
more sense, I guess.


>
> >* There appears to be an implicit judgement (good/bad) upon the ability
> > to understand this concept.
>
> I don't see that at all, although I see why someone might.
>
For me, part of it seems to be the apparent dismissive tone with
which it was said. At least that's my interpretation of it.

> >> >It's like saying women are
> >> >less likely to be *capable of* earning a living wage based upon their
> >> >innate characteristics, rather than saying a woman is less likely to
> >> >earn a living wage. The former is sexism,
> >>
> >> Even if it were found to be emprically true? Say, in the subset of
> >> occupations that require high upper-body strength?
> >>
> >In that particular example, I would suggest that intra-group differences
> >(see below) would overshadow differences between groups. But I take
> >your point.
> >
> >I would note, though, that you've cited a criterion which may be openly
> >demonstrated, and a difference which may be empiraclly proven - unlike
> >the original comment that sparked this sub-discussion.
>
> OK. So does that make it non-sexist?
>
My dictionary defines sexism as:
1. Discrimination based upon gender (sic), especially discrimination
against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviours that promote stereotyping of
social roles based puon gender (sic).

(I added the "sic" because the proper word here is sex, not gender).

Similarly, racism is defined as:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So I guess I would say that an empirically-provable statement of
a differences between sexes (or races) would not be sexist or
racist as long as there were no judgements placed upon (or along
with) the statement.

So, to continue, saying "women tend to have less upper-body strength
than men" is one thing. Saying any of the following, though, would
be something I consider sexism:
1. Women can't be construction workers.
2. Women, by and large, are unsuited to construction work.
3. I won't waste my time interviewing women for this job because they
lack the upper-body strength necessary.

> >You're right - the individual differences are more important than
> >the inter-group differences. I'd be interested in seeing an example
> >of the sort of program you're talking about; the ones with which I
> >am familiar are based upon performance rather than innate characteristics
> >(apart from such travesties as Affirmative Action).
>
> All types of minority set-asides, like the women-owned/minority-owned
> businesses preferences of various governments. Affirmative action, for
> sure; no need to set it apart.
>
The only purpose I could see in such programs is to redress a social
ill that would still be perpetuated without such a program. For example,
if we could demonstrate that the minority status of a business owner
directly related to lower commerce levels by that business, that might
be an argument for active redress. But I haven't seen any convincing
evidence that this is as big a problem as the programs used to combat
it. Indeed, I've been burned by set-asides myself because I happen to
be white and male, and while I am in a minority it isn't one which is
"protected."

--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading