[PEN-L:11372] Re: Male Chauvanist Mathematics

[MScoleman@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 97-07-21 15:10:46 EDT, Wojtek writes:

>However, Stephen Jay Gould has another explanation: one-dimensional models
>are much more useful in ranking people into classes and hierarchies than
>multi-dimensional ones.  If A scores higher on a single measure of
>intelligence, efficiency or what not than B, there is no question that A
>ranks above B.  If, on the other hand, A scores higher than B on measure p,
>but lower than B on measure q, then ranking becomes blurred, if at all
>possible.
>
>Is this a typical "male thing" to do, as Maggie C. & some feminists suggest?
>While it is a well known fact that males are more likely than females to
>form hierarchical relations with others, that seems to be an effect of
>social interaction rather than testosterone.
I think "maleness" and "femaleness" are both ALMOST completely socially
determined.  While hormones may drive us all to a certain extent, I think our
behavior is taught us from the cradle and our tendencies to rank are learned
skills.  Since we are separated by gender right from the beginning, I think
women and men learn different ways to relate to their own gender and the
opposite gender (using polarizing language here for the moment).

> When females enter the
>positions of power previously reserved for men only, their behaviour tends
>to resemble that of their male colleagues.
AAAAhhhhhh, one of my favorite questions.  Why do women emulate male behavior
when they achieve powerful positions?  Simply because the male form of
leadership is the one we all learn--which is why I think testosterone and
estrogen have less to do with all these things than learned skills.  Several
branches of the social sciences have found that leaders promote others who
are mirrors of themselves.  It only makes sense that in a world where most
leaders are men, that those men promote those few women who display facility
with male interaction techniques.  Further, I think that exercise of power
may lead to abuse regardless of the gender, race, or sexual preference of the
power wielder.  Further still, since there are few women in leadership
positions, very few of us have a range of experience with women leaders.  For
example, most people by middle age have worked for a range of male
bosses--and can point to some they could stand and some they couldn't.  Women
bosses are so rare, the tendency is to point to their ability or disability
in their position as a direct result of gender.  If there were more women in
powerful positons, there would probably be less of a tendency to blame/credit
all their behavior on their sex.  Finally, as a society, it is o.k. for men
to be agressive but agressive women receive all kinds of negative
descriptions--women leaders are no exception.

maggie coleman mscoleman@xxxxxxx