[PEN-L:11396] Gender and Hierarchy (was: Male Chauvanist Mathematics)
At 11:02 AM 7/22/97 -0700, you wrote: I am not in disagreement with your argument for the reproduction of the power elite (the bosses like to surround themselves with the types like themselves), but I still can argue that the pecking order, competitiveness and kindred characteristics of the corporate behaviour result not from "maleness" (genetically or cognitively defined) but from the nature of the interaction in corporate settings. That is, any person who regularly finds him- or her-self in situations that require submission/domination relations to others, competitiveness, aggresion etc. will internalize those behavioral traits -- whether that person is a male of a female. Likewise for those who regularly find him or her-self in sutuation requiring selflessness, nurtuting, "making it nice" etc. will internalize those traits as well. In short: pecking order, competitiveness, back-stabbing, kissing up and other discrete charms of corporate life are "male" only because males have historically been occupying those positions. I am pretty sure that females are as capable as males of displaying similar behavioral traits in situations where they could dominate - cf. the recent "indie" film "Welcome to the Dollhouse." As sociologists and historians have shown, when women have dominated positions of power over time (which is pretty rare), they are just as capable of creating nasty hierarchies. However, their hierarchies are differently structured--just look at women's vs. men's pecking orders in U.S. high schools. Corporate hierarchies don't look the way they do simply because of the inherent needs of capitalism or because they are "reproducing the power elite": they are gendered in a way that fits how Western society constructs maleness. That's why, as Maggie pointed out, it's good for male corporate weasels to be aggressive but not ok for female corporate weasels. That's also why in corporations, men in traditionally female roles tend to be treated better than women in traditionally male roles. For example, female secretaries are expected to "mother" their bosses in a way that male secretaries are not (for a wonderful analysis of these dynamics, check out Jennifer Pierce's study of male and female lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries in corporate law offices). This doesn't mean that if women were running things, we wouldn't have domination, competitiveness, back-stabbing, etc. But in our form of capitalism, sexism isn't just a matter of how much men vs. women get paid, it's built into the fabric of how power operates at a day-to-day level. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:11401] Affirmative Action
Now that the US is getting rid of affirmative action, i.e., discrimination in favor of those who have been getting the short end of the stick for centuries, is it going to get rid of the Small Business Administration (discrimination in favor of "entrepreneurs"), the tax break for mortgage interest (discrimination in favor of home owners), and the Veterans' Administration (discrimination in favor of ex-soldiers)? Just thought I should ask. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
[PEN-L:11404] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and
Carla Feldpausch just completed her PHD thesis,"The Political Economy of Chaos: Multiple Equilibria and Fractal Basin Boundaries in a Nonlinear Envir onmental Economy" with Walter Park (American University), Barkley Rosser (James Madison Univerity), and Robert Blecker (American University) this past Spring, 1997. You can contact her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory,
What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come.
[PEN-L:11406] deduction vs. induction
Wojtek writes: In essence, formal deduction was considered a vastly inferior to intuition form of knowledge [induction], until modern times, when it became a tool of natural sciences perceived as successful. Both attitudes are full of BS. Why can't induction and deduction be used together, as complements? And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction, often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out "answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE MODERN AGE, p. 179.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:11409] TORTURE in Israel - Systematic and Legal - MER FlashBack (fwd)
FYI
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:15:48 -0700
From: MID-EAST REALITIES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TORTURE in Israel - Systematic and "Legal" - MER FlashBack
M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S - TORTURE IN ISRAEL
**
News, Views Analysis They Don't Want You To Know
**
WWW.MiddleEast.Org Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To receive MER regularly at no cost request by email
--
ISRAELI TORTURE IS SYSTEMATIC AND "LEGAL"
[MER - Torture of Palestinians is not only routine and systematic,
in it actually sanctioned by the Israeli legal system that has
been twisted to serve Israeli policies. Going back to the
Shinbet scandal of the early 1980's, even more sadistic forms
of torture have given way to the kinds of 'legalized' torture
methods outlined in this important article from one of the few
independent and courageous media sources in Israel, The
Alternative Information Center (AIC).
Among the reasons the Israelis get away with such systematic
torture of Palestinians is that hardly anyone is willing to
protest. The so-called "Palestinian Authority" practices similar
and even worse torture techniques, as do nearly all of the Arab
governments in the region -- so they are hardly in a position
to protest. And the "liberal" American Jewish community has
been morally bankrupt about such issues for so long now that to
speak up at this point would be to condemn themselves for
permitting, and even encouraging in many cases, such Nazi-like
behavior by the Israelis for decades.
This report was first distributed by MER in January. The
subsquent report about torture in Israel by Steve Kroft on the
popular 60-Minutes CBS program was more whitewash than truthful,
even though it was pointed out that Israel is the only State in
the world that officially sanctions torture (in the form of
'moderate physical pressure) in its legal system].
ISRAELI JUSTICE ON TORTURE
A Shining Light Unto Nations?
"The entire Israeli establishment countenances torture..."
First, his head is covered with a thick rancid sack. It's difficult
to breathe. Handcuffed, he is bound in a twisted position to a
kindergarten chair with hardly any back support and held there for
four days straight. Every time his head falls when sleep overcomes
him, he is slapped on his face to wake up. Maybe on the
fifth day the handcuffs are removed and he is allowed to sleep in
a tiny windowless cell. Music is blaring in the cell around the
clock. It is difficult to sleep with noise and the constant glare
of the shining fluorescent light. On the sixth or seventh day,
his head is covered again with the rancid sack, but this time,
he is chained to a pole in the corridor and made to stand there for
four more days. Or perhaps, he is handcuffed to a hook a meter from
the ground and is forced to squat for three days; three days
continuously that is. Or he is undressed and made to sit in front of
a blasting air-conditioner for hours. There is no sleep. His hands
are swollen from the tight handcuffs; he is vomiting from the
prolonged contorted position he is held in. He smells, unshaven,
he wants to sleep.
This is "moderate physical pressure" under Israeli law and it is
legal. Under international law this is torture and is completely
prohibited at all times. This "moderate physical pressure" is
routinely used by the Israeli secret police ("GSS") to extract
confessions from Palestinian detainees under interrogation. The UN
Convention Against Torture, of which Israel is a signatory, states
that the use of any physical or psychological pressure which causes
pain or humiliation is absolutely prohibited at all times.
What constitutes torture and degrading treatment is subjective --
determined by the victims sensation of the physical and mental
pain caused to him. Sitting in front of cold air may not on its
face compare to torture methods like electric shock, but after
two weeks of little sleep and sitting in contorted positions,
undressed in the middle of the rainy winter, 12 hours of the "air
conditioner" feels like hell. One detainee described it as
"putting the air in a state of war with me".
Despite the prohibitions under international law, the entire
Israeli establishment countenances torture: The Israeli military
courts routinely disregard claims of torture and extend the
interrogations until the Israeli secret police finish the
interrogation; the Ministry of Justice defends the torture
in the Israeli High Court of Justice; the High Court of Justice
itself puts the stamp of approval on the torture often rejecting
[PEN-L:11410] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11405] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, What time is Costanza's brown bag at EPI? I'd like to come. 12:30 till about 2 pm, and please do come. Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11415] FW: Humor: syntax and irony
Subject: "signs of the times" The following are actual signs seen across the good ol' U.S.A. At gas eateries through the nation: Eat here and get gas. At a Santa Fe gas station: We will sell gasoline to anyone in a glass container. In a New York restaurant: Customers who consider our waitresses uncivil ought to see the manager. On the wall of a Baltimore estate: Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. --Sisters of Mercy On a long-established New Mexico dry cleaners: 38 years on the same spot. In a Los Angeles dance hall: Good clean dancing every night but Sunday. In a Florida maternity ward: No children allowed. In a New York drugstore: We dispense with accuracy On a New Hampshire medical building: Martin Diabetes Professional Ass. In the offices of a loan company: Ask about our plans for owning your home. In a New York medical building: Mental Health Prevention Center On a New York convalescent home: For the sick and tired of the Episcopal Church. On a Maine shop: Our motto is to give our customers the lowest possible prices and workmanship. At a number of military bases: Restricted to unauthorized personnel. On a display of "I love you only" valentine cards: Now available in multi-packs. In the window of a Kentucky appliance store: Don't kill your wife. Let our washing machine do the dirty work. In a funeral parlor: Ask about our layaway plan. In a clothing store: Wonderful bargains for men with 16 and 17 necks. In a Tacoma, Washington men's clothing store: 15 men's wool suits, $10. They won't last an hour! On a shopping mall marquee: Archery Tournament -- Ears pierced Outside a country shop: We buy junk and sell antiques. In the window of an Oregon store: Why go elsewhere and be cheated when you can come here? In a Maine restaurant: Open 7 days a week and weekends. On a radiator repair garage: Best place to take a leak. In the vestry of a New England church: Will the last person to leave please see that the perpetual light is extinguished. In a Pennsylvania cemetery: Persons are prohibited from picking flowers from any but their own graves. On a roller coaster: Watch your head. On the grounds of a public school: No tresspassing without permission. On a Tennessee highway: When this sign is under water, this road is impassable. Similarly, in front of a New Hampshire car wash: If you can't read this, it's time to wash your car. And apparently, somewhere in England in an open field otherwise untouched by human presence, there is a sign that says "Do not throw stones at this sign." *--* * James Craven * " The philosophers have only * * Dept of Economics* interpreted the world in various * * Clark College* ways; the point, however, is to * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* change it." (Karl Marx) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11416] Re: Objections to Social Security ...
On Wed, July 23, 1997 at 13:07:52 (-0700) Doug Henwood writes: A Cato Institute press release. Note the authors' employer - State Street Advisors, a large portfolio manager. So, who is going to write a point-by-point rebuttal to this, aside from Doug, who has a pretty good start of one in _Wall Street_, on pages 303-307? Bill
[PEN-L:11420] Re: Gender and Hierarchy (was: Male Chauv
In a message dated 97-07-23 09:26:05 EDT, Anders writes: Corporate hierarchies don't look the way they do simply because of the inherent needs of capitalism or because they are "reproducing the power elite": they are gendered in a way that fits how Western society constructs maleness. That's why, as Maggie pointed out, it's good for male corporate weasels to be aggressive but not ok for female corporate weasels. That's also why in corporations, men in traditionally female roles tend to be treated better than women in traditionally male roles. For example, female secretaries are expected to "mother" their bosses in a way that male secretaries are not (for a wonderful analysis of these dynamics, check out Jennifer Pierce's study of male and female lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries in corporate law offices). This doesn't mean that if women were running things, we wouldn't have domination, competitiveness, back-stabbing, etc. But in our form of capitalism, sexism isn't just a matter of how much men vs. women get paid, it's built into the fabric of how power operates at a day-to-day level. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications I agree. Gender is as inseperable from the exercise of power is it is in all our other relationships. Capitalism as exercised by women will still be exploitation, but it will not necessarily look the same. In order to understand where feminist arguments fit within the heirarchy of discussions on economic issues, it's important to recognize this--not just trash all feminist argument as 'bourgeois' or 'petit-bourgeois'. This is particularly insulting to working class women who are dealing with feminist issues of their own. Because we don't see women in positions where they dominate or exploit, society as a whole tends to come to the conclusion that women are incapable of being nasty--and are shocked when women are. On the other hand, facing the assumption that I'll always be 'motherly' and 'nice' has stood me in good stead on occasion... maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Using statistics descriptively for a moment: Caucasian women with college diplomas earn less, on average, than African American men with high school diplomas. Response (Jim C) I don't remember anyone, certainly not me, characterizing "all" feminist arguments as petit-bourgeois. What was characterized as "petit-bourgeois" was the notion of gender being exclusively or even the essential form of oppression without reference to other forms and bases of oppression. The above-mentioned "statistic" (sources?) if accurate, contains some potential built-in artifacts. College diplomas in what? What percentage of those women are working--part-time and full-time--and what percentage of those "African-American men" are working part-time and full-time. Also oppression is about much more than level of income or differential levels of income. Compare for example, what percentage of Caucasian women with College Degrees are subjected to random police searches or "accidental shooting by police" as they are driving versus African American Males with High School Diplomas. Non serious person could ever question the existence or seriousness of various forms and levels of oppression that women face. No question, typically poor women face additional forms of oppression relative to and even by poor men; the same applies for African American women vs men, American Indian women versus men etc. But again I reiterate, assuming differences in kind and degree when talking about various forms of oppression, the day-to-day conditions of life and forms of oppression suffered by a white, tenured, female professor for example only--not to point to anyone--or by a white female middle manager are simply incomparable typically with the conditions of life, the probabilities of death, and the ugly forms/consequences of oppression faced by say a typical American Indian male on a reservation or typical ghettoized African American male or even a typical poor White sharecropper etc. Gender, class, strata, race, ethnicity, religion, language, age all cna be/are used as instruments of divide-and-rule and oppression. I remember once a special article in Ms showing a woman U.S. Army General and illustrating/celebrating new avenues and opportunities for women in the military; terrific, "you've come a long way baby" now you have an equal opportunity to become an agent of U.S. Imperialism and join the boys in projecting U.S. Imperial power and terror throughout the world--that is an example of Petit-bourgeois (or worse) feminism--certainly not all feminism. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " The philosophers have only * * Dept of Economics* interpreted the world in various * * Clark College* ways; the point,
[PEN-L:11422] Sankei Shimbun, Plot-Breeding Newspaper
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --15834B0E181B Pyongyang, July 22 (KCNA) -- The Japanese Sankei Shimbun, on June 28, alleged that the DPRK has three dollar counterfeiting plants and has circulated tens of billions of dollars by massprinting fake dollars. The groundless allegation was carried by the south Korean newspaper Donga Ilbo next day. The Sankei Shimbun's false report was only aimed at slandering the DPRK and hurting its international prestige. We can never allow the Sankei Shimbun to maliciously abusing the DPRK. The false report is what the south Korean Agency for National Security Planning invented in conspiracy with the Japanese newspaper. The Sankei Shimbun, in the hope of giving authenticity to the fiction, quoted testimonies of those who defected to south Korea from the north after committing crimes. But the sources are too despicable and poor fellows. It is nobody's secret that the defectors can only say as told by the ANSP. From this point of view, we can see how faithful the Sankei Shimbun is to the ANSP. Counterfeit notes and goods are things available in such corrupt society governed by jungle law as Japan and south Korea. Such things are unimaginable in our socialist society replete with justice and benevolence, society where the people are the masters of the country and constitute a great harmonious family. We have no such plants as the Phyongsong trademark plant, the February Wonbit Trading Company and the liaison office No. 101 which the Sankei Shimbun described as dollar counterfeiting plants. Obviously, they are bogus plants, brainchilds of the ANSP. It is south Korea that tops the world's list of counterfeit and forgery. It is an undeniable fact that south Korea's is a puppet regime faked up by the United States and Kim Young Sam could become its president with lies and through fraudulent elections. South Korea is the kingdom of forgery which is inundated by counterfeit money, advertisements, drugs, foodstuff, etc. Dollar counterfeiting plants and fake notes are what can be seen in such society as south Korea. The Sankei Shimbun, oblivious of the duty and mission of the press, has nothing to get but miserable end. The plot-breeding newspaper had better surrender itself to justice. KCNA Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --15834B0E181B--
[PEN-L:11426] text of July 22 Teamster UPS bulletin
This came today from the IBT Communications Dept. with requests to circulate widely. A strike at UPS could become the next major national battleground for organized labor, with implications far beyond the membership of the Teamsters and the package delivery industry. Let's not let this one go a year or more before we recognize the need for massive, militant, national solidarity actions. === Teamsters UPS Update July 22, 1997 Please post and distribute UPS TEAMSTERS PREPARE FOR JOB ACTION With less than 10 days to go before our national contract expires, UPS negotiators are still not addressing our key proposals. On Thursday, July 17, Teamsters Parcel Division Director Ken Hall told company representatives that our union's national negotiating committee would be available to meet "day and night, seven days a week, until July 31." That same afternoon, management's lead negotiator dropped another demand for give-backs on the table and said his team wouldn't be back for five days. When company negotiators finally returned to the table on Tuesday, July 22, they still refused to seriously address our main issues. As a result of management's continued foot-dragging, General President Ron Carey instructed all UPS locals to begin making preparations for a possible strike if needed to win a good agreement. Carey asked all UPS locals to appoint strike coordinators and picket line captains for each UPS building. "Time is running out -- and we're going to be ready for every possible course of action as the clock winds down," said General President Carey. Tell UPS: "Best Way To Reassure Customers is to Settle Now" There is still time to reach an agreement before our national contract expires on July 31 -- but UPS doesn't seem to think so. When management came back to the negotiating table on Tuesday, July 22 -- after taking a five day break -- they brought a request for a contract extension in order to "reassure" customers that there won't be a strike. "This strategy is nothing more than a management scare tactic," said Teamsters Parcel Division Director Ken Hall. "The best way for UPS to 'reassure' its customers is to start bargaining seriously. If they did that, we could have and agreement by the end of the week." Stay Focused on Our Goals UPS negotiators are trying to distract us from our priorities by making more demands for give-backs. For example, at the end of last week the company handed out a proposal that would force all Teamster UPSers to turn over their health and welfare benefits and pensions to company-controlled plans. Apparently this is what the company means when it claims to be negotiating "seriously." There's only one response to this tactic -- staying focused on the goals we've been fighting for since day one: * An end to subcontracting. * More full-time jobs. * Better wages and benefits. * Accurate paychecks. * Improvements in safety and health.
[PEN-L:11424] James Q. Wilson on the automobile in _Commentary_
In our discussion on the automobile, Michael Perelman mentioned Jane Holtz Kay's _Asphalt Nation_. James Q. Wilson has an article in the latest _Commentary_ expounding on the joys of the car, slamming Kay in the process. Bill
[PEN-L:11423] Re: deduction vs. induction
Jim Devine writes: Both attitudes are full of BS. Why can't induction and deduction be used together, as complements? And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction, often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out "answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE MODERN AGE, p. 179.) COMMENT: I agree with Jim that induction and deduction can be complementary in that induction or abduction could be used to generate hypotheses that can then be tested through deduction of what must be true if the hypotheses are correct. While the hypothetico-deductive method no doubt stresses the deductive aspect overmuch and relied too much on problematic positivist ideas of verification (or falsification with Popper) it still strikes me as far superior to the model of Lakatos who along with Kuhn seem to me to be vastly over-rated philosophers of science.While Kuhn's description of historical paradigm shifts is interesting enough his epistemological relativism in which he holds (along with that other goofus Feyerabend) that there is no body of neutral judgments to test hypotheses (since all observation is said to be theory laden -including this observation of Kuhn?) is just plain goofiness on stilts no matter how popular it may be. Although Lakatos' points out real problems in Popper's falsificationist view, Popper is by far the more original thinker. As far as I know, the term "abduction" , was first used by Peirce in much the manner Fischer suggests. Abduction is the process by which we form a hypothesis which we think best explains a particular event. It would be the sort of thinking that Sherlock Holmes was good at. On the other hand induction arrives at a generalisation said to be supported by the particulars. All observed crows ( Crow A, B, C, etc.) are black therefore all crows are black. The generalisation does not follow deductively from the premisses about particular observed crows. Generalisation about causes such as Mill's methods would be other examples.No doubt abduction often involves, though it is not identical with, inductive generalisation. Peirce, however, uses terms in imprecise ways. In fact in his later work he uses abduction to refer to any of the norms that might guide a person in formulating a hypothesis and deciding which hypotheses are to be taken as a serious explanation. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:11418] Re: Gender and Hierarchy (was: Male Chauvanist Mathematics)
In a message dated 97-07-23 09:26:05 EDT, Anders writes: Corporate hierarchies don't look the way they do simply because of the inherent needs of capitalism or because they are "reproducing the power elite": they are gendered in a way that fits how Western society constructs maleness. That's why, as Maggie pointed out, it's good for male corporate weasels to be aggressive but not ok for female corporate weasels. That's also why in corporations, men in traditionally female roles tend to be treated better than women in traditionally male roles. For example, female secretaries are expected to "mother" their bosses in a way that male secretaries are not (for a wonderful analysis of these dynamics, check out Jennifer Pierce's study of male and female lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries in corporate law offices). This doesn't mean that if women were running things, we wouldn't have domination, competitiveness, back-stabbing, etc. But in our form of capitalism, sexism isn't just a matter of how much men vs. women get paid, it's built into the fabric of how power operates at a day-to-day level. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications I agree. Gender is as inseperable from the exercise of power is it is in all our other relationships. Capitalism as exercised by women will still be exploitation, but it will not necessarily look the same. In order to understand where feminist arguments fit within the heirarchy of discussions on economic issues, it's important to recognize this--not just trash all feminist argument as 'bourgeois' or 'petit-bourgeois'. This is particularly insulting to working class women who are dealing with feminist issues of their own. Because we don't see women in positions where they dominate or exploit, society as a whole tends to come to the conclusion that women are incapable of being nasty--and are shocked when women are. On the other hand, facing the assumption that I'll always be 'motherly' and 'nice' has stood me in good stead on occasion... maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Using statistics descriptively for a moment: Caucasian women with college diplomas earn less, on average, than African American men with high school diplomas.
[PEN-L:11417] Male Chauvanist Math
Jay Hecht wrote: "In fact, it was quite evident that the hospital practice at this particular Big 6 succeeded because the women supplanted the incompetent males!" This can be explained in a simple Becker (neoclassical) manner: Prior to the hiring of women, incompletent males were hired. However, once access was extended, capitalist accounting firms were able to hire the most productive workers which included many women. Generally, in the first stages of integrating the workforce, very talented women are hired. Not surprisingly, just as in baseball in the 1950s, this would include some exceptional players. In a sense, Jay's wife may be the Willie Mays of hospital accounting!! More to the point: The use of econometrics in is to emphasize central tendencies and often long run tendencies. This "makes sense" if one can ignore the immediate situation or the deviations from the central tendencies. Professional men have a greater willingness to do this because they rarely experience (though they may empathize with) the downsides -- adverse side effects -- of public policies. A few examples: 1. Marx tended to minimize concerns for the immediate adverse impact of capitalism on women and children because he focused on what he believed to be the inherent impact of capitalism dynamics in the long run on their situation. While I believe he was absolutely correct in his prognostications, it is unlikely that many of his contemporary working class woman would have been so focused on long run dynamics. 2. Paul Krugman makes a somewhat similar point about the present dynamics in newly emerging industrialized countries where women are being exploited in the capitalist process rather than in the more feudalistic structures that previously dominated their employment. There is a certain logic and "truth" in what Krugman states because as a central tendency capitalism on average is improving the economic wellbeing of women. However, within this dynamics there are women who will necessarily experience not the central tendency but the worst abuses. Again, it is more likely that men will focus on the central tendency rather than the worst abuses. This is the same when we look at economic analysis which posits a "typical" household or "typical" firm. Here an example could be NAFTA where it may be true that on average a typical household would benefit from the increased world specialization with lower consumer prices. However, it makes a difference whether the typical household is comprised of upper-income professionals or lower-income blue collar workers when we look closely at the employment effects (which in the aggregate may net out to zero). Again, do we focus on the central tendency (male professionals??) or on the adverse consequences to particular subgroups (female blue collar??). Robert Cherry/Brooklyn College
[PEN-L:11414] Re: Male Chauvanist Mathematics
Good Folks, I've been reading these missives, while observing my younger daughter who just turned 1. I watch her play with a truck and then cuddle her doll. I don't know where she learned to do either, but it probably comes from external and internal influences. Now on the other hand, her mother is a CPA and runs an accounting dept in a large hospital. A lot of males (from Goldman Sachs to the CFO and other bigs) absolutley depend upon her analytical prowess to keep the hospital solvent (no small feat in these days of madness). In fact, my wife got into hospital accounting because at the time (early 1980s) it wasn't considered "glamorous" (by accountants, of all people!). The point is that when the guys screwed up the audits they had to "call in the women" to get the job done right. In fact, it was quite evident that the hospital practice at this particular Big 6 succeeded because the women supplanted the incompetent males! (Maggie will concur on this for NYNEX). My wife never expects to be treated differently, however, she also knows that sexisim is a fact of the workplace. Fortunately, the people above her (males) recognize her talents and try to let her do her job - a situation that most women don't have. Success is contingent upon a ton of factors (including hormones and sexism, etc), however, as Steve Gould points out, human's have an incredible capacity to adapt. Basically, in the workplace,it comes down to letting people do their job, and hopefully, recognizingthat everybody's got peeves and prejudices. The key thing is to recognize that "none are without sin" and to learn to keep your attitudes in check, if you can't change 'em. Jason
[PEN-L:11413] re: adduction
Jim Devine wrote, And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction, often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out "answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE MODERN AGE, p. 179.) Perhaps abduction has gotten a bad name from its association with kidnappers. Q-methodology is described by its proponents as an abductory method. I doing a q-study right now (attitudes to work time and the millennium), so I suppose I could say I'm an abductor. But whatever happened to plain old duction? I suspect that a lot of the mental landscape is held together by sheer duction in the same way that much of the pre-post-modern objective world was held together by duct tape. Who ever heard of induct tape, deduct tape or abduct tape, anyway? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm Response (Jim C) A la Blaug's discussion in "The Methodology of Economics" the distinction between "induction" and "adduction" is made in reference to Hume's "fallacy of induction"(I have this random and wide sample of swans and every swan in the sample is white "therefore" all swans are white; one black swan destroys the generalization and "therefore" the general cannot be "proven" from the particular in the same sense that the particular can be tautologically "proven" from general assumptions like A=B, B=C ergo A=C). The suggestion then is that adduction refers to provisional "support" for generalizations from particular data, facts etc--provisional in the sense that falsification may loom over the horizon with the finding of a "black" swan. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " The philosophers have only * * Dept of Economics* interpreted the world in various * * Clark College* ways; the point, however, is to * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd.* change it." (Karl Marx) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11412] Objections to Social Security privatization don't withstand
A Cato Institute press release. Note the authors' employer - State Street Advisors, a large portfolio manager. Doug July 22, 1997 Objections to Social Security privatization don't withstand scrutiny "The most common criticisms of a market-based retirement system are unfounded," says William Shipman in a paper released today by the Cato Institute. At a Cato Policy Forum on Capitol Hill, Shipman addressed the eight most common objections he's heard in the course of giving more than 100 speeches and interviews about Social Security privatization over the past year. In "Common Objections to a Market-Based Social Security System: A Response," Shipman and coauthor Melissa Hieger discuss common criticisms of privatization, including questions of market risk, potential difficulties for unsophisticated investors in the system and the plight of survivors of deceased workers. "None of those objections survives a careful examination of the evidence," say the authors. "In fact, most represent a misunderstanding of financial markets and how a privatized Social Security system would work." Some critics of privatization claim that private markets are risky and that only knowledgeable investors can successfully handle such risks. "In reality," Hieger and Shipman write, "long-term investment in private capital markets is less risky than the current Social Security system and can be handled by even inexperienced investors." Social Security privatization will not hurt low-wage workers, according to Hieger and Shipman. They note that, because of its much higher returns, a market-based Social Security system would benefit individuals across all income, age and education levels and offer more security than does the current pay-as-you-go system. Hieger and Shipman argue that benefits from a privatized Social Security system will greatly outweigh any fees and administrative costs and that survivors' benefits would be better than under the current system. "The privatization of Social Security is an idea whose time has come," say the authors. "Common criticisms of a market-based retirement system are unfounded and should not stand in the way of providing a better and more secure retirement program for today's workers." William Shipman is a principal with State Street Global Advisors, and Melissa Hieger is a vice president with the firm. Shipman is also co-chairman of the Cato Project on Social Security Privatization and coauthor of the book, "Promises to Keep: Saving Social Security's Dream." Social Security Paper no. 10 (http://www.socialsecurity.org/studies/ssp10es.html) Contact: William Shipman, principal, State Street Global Advisors, 617-654-3137 Melissa Hieger, vice president, State Street Global Advisors, 617-664-6668 Dave Quast, director of public affairs, 202-789-5266, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11411] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory,
Robin Hahnel wrote: Carla Feldpausch just completed her PHD thesis,"The Political Economy of Chaos: Multiple Equilibria and Fractal Basin Boundaries in a Nonlinear Envir onmental Economy" with Walter Park (American University), Barkley Rosser (James Madison Univerity), and Robert Blecker (American University) this past Spring, 1997. You can contact her at [EMAIL PROTECTED] To those who are suspicious of math for feminist reasons: is this masculinist of Carla? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:11408] re: abduction
Jim Devine wrote, And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction, often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out "answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE MODERN AGE, p. 179.) Perhaps abduction has gotten a bad name from its association with kidnappers. Q-methodology is described by its proponents as an abductory method. I doing a q-study right now (attitudes to work time and the millennium), so I suppose I could say I'm an abductor. But whatever happened to plain old duction? I suspect that a lot of the mental landscape is held together by sheer duction in the same way that much of the pre-post-modern objective world was held together by duct tape. Who ever heard of induct tape, deduct tape or abduct tape, anyway? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:11407] Re: Male Chauvanist Mathematics
At 09:22 AM 7/22/97 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: Maybe, just maybe, this discussion needs to be widened and deepened. Plato once noted that "those who seek power are invariably the least fit to wield it." No doubt the positions of power under capitalism-- and other systems--are largely dominated by males. No doubt those males prefer others from the same gender with similar proclivities and world views around them. No doubt those in power view women as inherently ill-equipped to assume/exercise power. But it goes further than that. Capitalism as a system and those who hold/exercise various forms of power, demand, for their continual expanded reproduction, hierarchies, depreciation/degradation of the real producers, commodification of every aspect of life and very narrow/restricted pathways and criteria for accession to effective power of the few over the many. That brings the question whether capitalism is a 'system' that generates its own logic of domination that operates independently or even in the oppostion to the logic of domination developed by other 'systems' (which, I believe is the Marx's position), or perhaps capitalism is an 'opportunistic oppressor' -- it merely utilizes whateven form of oppression it can find in the area it operates, but none of these from are "intrinsically " capitalist. As I understant the feminist position on that issue (cf. Heidi Hartmann, which is a bit old stuff, but this 'old stuff' that developed mainly as the labour market analysis is a better critical social science, IMHO, than the later identity politics stuff), they argue for the latter, that is, that gender oppression is not necessarily subsumed under the class oppression (e.g. working class wives who do the housework for their working class husbands are exploited by both theier husbands and the capitalist bosses to whom their husbands sell their labour power, reproduced thanks to the houserwork of their wives -- which seems to be consistent with the argument Jim is making). While I do not have the answer to that question, I also see a certain danger of the second position. If oppression is ubiquituous and not intrinsically tied to a particular form of the organization of economy society -- then it is perhaps a part of the "human nature" as bourgeois pundits tell us, and there is little we can do to avoid it. Of course within any social class or strata typically women are far more oppressed than the males. But when we compare for example, the forms and levels of oppression typically faced by a white, female, tenured academic at a leading university with the forms and levels of oppression faced by a typical American Indian male on a Reservation or a typical Chicano migrant farm worker or a typical ghettoized African--American male or a typical White sharecropper, the differences in forms and levels of oppression are like night and day. That is why this crude (some of it petit-bourgeois in my opinion) feminism which sees oppression only in gender terms, which speaks of "male" logic versus "female" logic, or, which speaks of "typical" female characteristics (e.g. intuition, nurturing, cooperation) versus "typical" male characteristics (competition, mathematical formalism etc) is simply not only off the mark, but also highly destructive and diversionary from the real forms, levels sources, causes, mechanisms and consequences of oppression. Ditto. The association of femininity with caretaking , gentleness and "making it nice" and masculinity with brutality and aggression is petty bourgeois -- and played a crucial role in the "switching off" the women's movement in post-Weimar Germany by the Nazis. The Nazis developed women's organization structures totally within, and controlled by the male dominated nazi state and sold those structures by appealing to the ideology of the "lebensraum" (living room) that was defined in the German culture as the "female" place protected from the male brutality of the outside world. Those organizations within organizational structures of the nazi state were supposed not only to "protect" the women from the brutality of theoutside world, but to provide them an opportunity to play their "natural" roles "making it nice" in the world brutalized by men (translation: provide support services for the nazi war effort). For a discussion see Claudia Koontz, _Mothers in the Fatherland_. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:11403] Re: Gender and Hierarchy (was: Male Chauvanist
At 06:20 AM 7/23/97 -0700, Anders Schneiderman wrote: As sociologists and historians have shown, when women have dominated positions of power over time (which is pretty rare), they are just as capable of creating nasty hierarchies. However, their hierarchies are differently structured--just look at women's vs. men's pecking orders in U.S. high schools. Corporate hierarchies don't look the way they do simply because of the inherent needs of capitalism or because they are "reproducing the power elite": they are gendered in a way that fits how Western society constructs maleness. That's why, as Maggie pointed out, it's good for male corporate weasels to be aggressive but not ok for female corporate weasels. That's also why in corporations, men in traditionally female roles tend to be treated better than women in traditionally male roles. For example, female secretaries are expected to "mother" their bosses in a way that male secretaries are not (for a wonderful analysis of these dynamics, check out Jennifer Pierce's study of male and female lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries in corporate law offices). This doesn't mean that if women were running things, we wouldn't have domination, competitiveness, back-stabbing, etc. But in our form of capitalism, sexism isn't just a matter of how much men vs. women get paid, it's built into the fabric of how power operates at a day-to-day level. This is also the position I tried to argue -- that apparent differences in "peronality traits" can be tracked down to differenttypes of interaction men and women usually findthmensleves in. As I understood Maggie's position, she argued the opposite, namely, that the type of interaction results from differential "personality traits" in mena and women (developed through socialization rather than genetically programmed, to be sure). But perhaps I misconstrued her argument, and if that's the case, I concede. The reason why I accept the "interaction causality" rather than the "persnality/cognition causality" position is that the former makes social change possible while the latter does not. If social interaction is a natural outcome of some intrinsic "human nature" (coded as "personality," "tastes" etc.) as the bourgeois ideologues maintain, then the only rational conclusion is that no matter how hard we try, we will always end up with the social order order that resembles the status quo. If, on the other hand, "personality" is in fact an outcome of social interaction, then changing the nature of the intercation (by changing social institutions that are nothing more that rutinised interaction) we can actually hope to change things by changing social institutions -- which is what progressive social science is all about. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:11402] Re: Intuition in Math Reasoning
At 02:56 AM 7/23/97 -0700, you wrote: It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual basis in economics, so much so that "the back of the head" is nothing but a rough substitute for it. Economics aren't yet a true science, although such a tool has never been so necessary as nowadays. That's the reason why econometrics ask mathematics to fill the conceptual gap. This matter is economically the most important one, but I'm afraid it doesn't interest the most of economists... In this context, it is revealing to examine the etymological roots of the word "mathematics" - it derives from the ancient Greek and means "what is already known" - based on Heidegger's interpretation, that suggest mere cataloguing of information acquired through other means, rather than discovering new information. Intuition or insight, on the other hand, denoted in classical philosophy a cognitive faculty of direct acquisition of new information. In that aspect, it was comparable to experience, except that intuition was more valuable than experience because it allowed the inquiring mind to directly access the 'essences of things' rather than their appearences. This distinction between formal deduction (as in mathematics) and intution forming the basis of deduction (that's how we comprehend axioms) was still present in post Kartesian thought (cf. Baruch Spinoza). In essence, formal deduction was considered a vastly inferior to intuition form of knowledge, until modern times, when it became a tool of natural sciences perceived as successful. Therefore, the mystification of mathematics in modern economics can be compared to cargo cults that spread on some Pacific isalands after World War II. The Americans established air bases on those islands, and to buy the aborigines' loyalty, they showered them with goodies which, of course, they transpored by air. After the war, the Gringos left, and the trickle of goodies dried up. To reverse their fortune, the aborigines started to emulate what the Gringos did -- building aircraft carrying the goodies to the islands. Except that lacking the proper materials, the aborigines built those aircraft from sticks and straw. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:11400] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, an
From: Anders Schneiderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Talk to Dean Baker, Frank Muller, or Andy Hoerner at EPI ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Obviously check out Herman Daly and Robert Costanza (latter is at U of Md.). If you're in DC tomorrow (the 24th, Thursday), come to a brown-bag at EPI given by Costanza. There was a president's Commission on Sustainable Development (Dean was on it) which did reports or statements of some kind. Cheers, Max === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:11399] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
On Wed, July 23, 1997 at 06:21:02 (-0700) Anders Schneiderman writes: I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. About online sustainable development... The folks at CSF had a Herman Daly seminar the remains of which can be found online, along with other material, at http://csf.colorado.edu/isee/daly/. You might try searching USENET by going to http://www.dejanews.com/ and typing in a search of "sustainable development" (without quotes; disclaimer---I am an owner of and worker for Dejanews). I just did a search and there were several articles you might find relevant (one article pointed readers to the site http://www.nautilus.org/). About complexity theory, it depends on what you mean by accessible. Richard H. Day has a book called _Complex Economic Dynamics: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems_. Volume 1 (MIT Press, 1994), which is not too bad. Also, Richard M. Goodwin. _Chaotic Economic Dynamics_ (Oxford University Press, 1990) might be useful. Ching-Yao Hsieh and Meng-Hua Ye's _Economics, Philosophy, and Physics_ (M. E. Sharpe, 1991) touches on chaos theory and is quite good. For an example of how *not* to think about chaos theory and economics, see Paul Krugman's insipid _The Self-Organizing Economy_ (Basil Blackwell, 1996), research for a review of which I am presently conducting. For online chaos stuff, you might try the Santa Fe Institute at http://alife.santafe.edu/. You might also try Yale's Center for Computational Ecology at http://peaplant.biology.yale.edu:8001/, or the Complexity and Nonlinear Social Systems Home Page at http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~paradox/complexity.html. Barkley Rosser has written a paper, "Complex Dynamics in New Keynesian and Post Keynesian Economics", available at gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU/00/econ/authors/Rosser.Barkley/complex%20dynamics. Finally, try the Chaos Network at http://www.prairienet.org/business/ptech/txt/. Bill
[PEN-L:11398] Re: Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
Dear Penlrs, I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications Check out HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, 1996 by the United Nations. It contains sections and articles about sustainable economic development. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:11397] Sustainable Development, Complexity theory, and Economics
Dear Penlrs, I'm starting a new research project, and I need to get up to speed on the latest thinking about sustainable development. Anybody have any reading suggestions (particularly things I can find on-line, since the libraries in Syracuse are fairly limited)? I'm trying to use ecology / sustainable development as a metaphor. Also, has anyone in economics done research using complexity theory that's reasonably accessible? I know Kenneth Arrow was doing some work, but I was curious who else has done interesting research. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:11395] Re: Intuition in Math Reasoning
It's relevant that Keynes doesn't condemn, here, the use of mathematics in economics (as for him, he rather liked to have recourse to them up to tautology), but that he implicitly accuses the lack of a conceptual basis in economics, so much so that "the back of the head" is nothing but a rough substitute for it. Economics aren't yet a true science, although such a tool has never been so necessary as nowadays. That's the reason why econometrics ask mathematics to fill the conceptual gap. This matter is economically the most important one, but I'm afraid it doesn't interest the most of economists... Sincerly Romain Kroes Laurence Shute wrote: Does this help any? From the General Theory (pp 297-98): "It is a great fault of symbolic pseudo-mathematical methods of formalising a system of economic analysis, such as we shall set down in section VI of this chapter, that they expressly assume strict independence between the factors involved and lose all their cogency and authority if this hypothesis is disallowed; whereas, in ordinary discourse, where we are not blindly manipulating but know all the time what we are doing and what the words mean, we can keep 'at the back of our heads' the necessary reserves and qualifications and the adjustments which we shall have to make later on, in a way in which we cannot keep complicated partial differentials 'at the back' of several pages of algebra which assume that they all vanish. Too large a proportion of recent 'mathematical' economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose4 sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols." In 1940 Keynes was greatly worried that his American disciplices "were more orthodox than the master," in the sense that they failed to keep the necessary reservations "at the back of their head."
