LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  February 2005

TSE February 2005

Subject:

Re: OT: Summers's comments

From:

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:54:59 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

I think this is a Jamesian semantic disagreement.  If you were never
encouraged and no one ever spoke to you of other options, the unspoken
but very clear message was that there WERE NO science options.  That is
discouragement.  So if your brother would have been "encouraged," but
you were not even offered a discussion, you WERE discouraged.  That is
how much cultural construction happens:  there simply is no way but the
accepted or assumed one that is even presented.  

I often, in intro to Women's Studies classes, have students interview a
mother or grandmother or other older woman on their life.  They are
always amazed (I of course am not) at how constantly they all hear "
when I was your age there were only three things a woman could
be--secretary, nurse, teacher."  That was the set of options; that was
it. And if I tell them that, it has little effect.  When half the class
hears the same line and reports it, they realize the power of indirect
discouragement.  So few women, the rare tough ones who refused to be
discouraged, tried for other things.  

Even when I went to graduate school, I was just apparently too dumb to
notice that I was not there in the faculty.  In 13 years of college, I
had one (1) woman professor.  She was in the school of education.  And
it was not because I avoided them.  They were not there.  I'm sure
Carroll will remember even a little earlier that there were simply no
women at all in the English Department at Michigan though 50% of grad
students were women.  We did not notice we were in a fool's game.  And
yet women are better at verbal skills.  How little "science" or
"interests" directed the department's faculty choice.

It is not true that I think society is entirely the cause of different
interests.  I said that before.  But it is true that society has a very
major part in guiding them, and, in fact, no one knows or even can know
how much because there is no society we can study where such differences
do not exist.  There is no critical variable.  You have no idea to what
extent gender affects preferences, nor do I.  I say "gender" rather than
"sex" because we all know there are girls (genetically, anatomically,
and hormonally) who want to play ball and box and boys (genetically,
anatomically, and hormonally) who want to cook and design dresses.  It's
just not a simple matter of equating anatomy or even genes with desire.

If there is any evidence that men any more than women can be limited to
simple categories like "wives and houses are part of plan but not dream"
I cannot imagine what it is.  I once knew a man whose whole life
centered on being a father and doing the whole cooking, homework, kids
games bit.  He was extremely intelligent but not at all interested in
any career.  Parenting was his "dream."  And many women have other
dreams.  

My very obvious point is that there is no way to set men and women into
a simple dichotomy.
Nancy


>>> [log in to unmask] 02/26/05 6:39 PM >>>
 
I wouldn't say I was discouraged from pursuing a career in science.   It

would be more accurate to state that I was not encouraged. I was
fortunate  enough 
to have parents who were able and willing to pay for my college 
education, 
and they would have paid for it whether I had majored in English or 
Science.  
What they refused to pay for was for an acting school in New  York,
which was 
my first choice at the time.  But, you are correct in that  my brother
went to 
Bentley as an accounting major. Despite the fact  that I had extremely
high 
SAT scores, in both Math and English, no one, not  my parents nor any
guidance 
counselor, spoke with me about any other option  other than attending a 
Liberal Arts University as an English major.   As I said, my parents and
the school 
counselor didn't discourage  me from pursuing a science education(they
all 
discouraged me from pursuing  a career in acting), but I do feel that
had I been 
a male, there  would have been more of a dialogue, which I believe can
be very 
 extremely helpful to most 17 and 18 year old kids. I guess we disagree
in 
the  "interest" issue in that you believe that society is responsible
for 
creating  separate interests.  I say that some of it is just natural. 
My main  
point is that a woman can be a "girlie-girl" type of woman(very
feminine) and  
still be a brilliant scientist. The differences between the genders  
have 
nothing to do with intellect or competence. And yes, thank god, there 
are many 
interests which men and women share, and yes, most men want wives and 
homes, too, 
the difference being, in my opinion, that many men consider  this an 
essential part of their plan whereas most women consider this an 
essential part of 
their dream.   As for my parents who  didn't want me to become a
professional 
actress and never even thought of me as  a scientist, I was cast in
eight 
amateur and semi-Professional  productions throughout the years.  They
came to every 
single one.  The  last one was about six years ago in Naples, and they
flew 
1800 plus  miles for opening night. 
 
Regards,
 
Kate
 
In a message dated 2/25/2005 11:49:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

I don't  disagree with any of this except the conclusion that you can
label it  "interests."  By your own account, you were "interested" in
science  and were discouraged from following it.  That is, in fact,  my
point.  Had you been male, I doubt that would have happened.   

Being equally uninterested in boxing and soaps, I cannot comment  on
that, but no one doubts there are differing "interests" organized  by
gender in this culture.  But no one has shown they are  innate.  It
seems
quite possible for women and men to have many, many  of the same
interests, both popular and aesthetic.  That is why we are  all on an
Eliot list and why women go to baseball games and men to  romantic
movies.  And men, one presumes from their behavior,   also want wives
and
kids and houses.  


 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager