Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	    It's certainly not true that all men do more driving than
	all women.  I have heard about women doing very well - being
	on equal footing with men - in auto racing competitions.
	    As for sports that require physical strength of short
	duration, it still appears that men generally have the advant-
	age.  (Though there are certain women who are better at some
	random sport than certain men, but the record-holding men are
	still ahead of the record-holding women in certain sports.)
	    I don't believe it's going to stay that way; I think a
	lot of people are going to be surprised someday.  I heard a
	very interesting anecdote by a coach of an Olympic men's swim-
	ming team in the 1920's.  He said that they were the best in
	the world, each one of them robust and strapping; yet each one
	of them would have been soundly defeated by any member of a
	high school girl's swim team of today!!!
			<_Jym_>

        Maybe it's just simple politics (certainly a bit misguided,
        but not necessarily sexist)... with 15 women and 50 men,
        the chances, by simple statistics, of a woman being one of
        the top two (or even 3) drivers is relatively low.  This
        guarantees that a woman will win a prize (and, incidentally,
        that a *man* will win a prize).
        
        Maybe there's even some real psychological validity... it gives
        women a 1 in 15 chance (instead of 1 in 65) of winning, and men
        a 1 in 50 chance instead of a 1 in 65... in the ideal 50/50 mix
        of participants, everyone would have twice the chance of winning
        that they would have with no division of contestants.
        Statistically (assuming that the men and women are equal...
        which, in driving, they should be), that's no different from
        just giving prizes to the top 2... but I know that I'd feel more
        confident writing off half the contestants from the start,
        and thinking "I've got to beat 1/2 of these people" rather
        than "I've got to beat all---or all but one---of these people".
        
        For that purpose, it's as valid to make the division on the
        basis of sex as anything else... that *is* an obvious and
        indisputable distinction; and one which nobody should reasonably
        feel uncomfortable about (I'd feel better about winning "the
        men's division", even if a woman beat me by a mile, than
        about winning "the beginners' division").
        
        Their actual reasons may have been very sexist, for all I
        know... though that seems unlikely if the rest of the course
        struck you as being fair.
        
        	/dave

    This IS tongue in cheek:
    
    Since we might give women a better chance at taking home a prize
    when there are 15 women to 50 men, how about making sure that
    blacks take home a prize, too, and we will have a "Negro division".
    
    
    Subtle discrimination is nevertheless discrimination.
    
    Carol :-)

    They probably didn't *mean* to be sexist, but I have to agree with
    .4 about discrimination, even subtle, it's still there. I have to
    wonder how I would have done in the competition. I'm not sure how
    many miles I logged for Greyhound, a couple of taxi companies, and
    going over the road with my truck driving husband who occassionally
    had to sleep. :-)
                                               -sunny-

    
    What about men's and women's prizes in performing arts - academy
    awards, tonys, American Music awards, grammys?  They are all separated
    into men's and women's awards.  Should it be simply best performance
    in a movie - instead of best actress, best actor?  The music awards
    even have a "Black Music" award, which *does* insure that a black
    person wins an award!  I wonder if eventually even these divisions
    will be considered sexist?
    
    Lorna
    

        I doubt a "black music" award will ever be considered "sexist",
        but then you never know... :-)
        
        Of course it's sexist... I suspect it's the same logic as
        I applied to the race: a convenient exuse to give out more
        awards, combined with politics to ensure that nobody feels
        left out.
        
        The politics is probably a really important factor.  If our
        hypothetically non-sexist awards show just *happened* to give no
        award to a woman, a large number of woman would scream because
        men took all the prizes.  If no blacks got an award, a large
        number of blacks would scream.  And most likely if no man got an
        award, men would start screaming, too. Each group may or may not
        be justified in doing so, depending on how the decisions were
        made...
        
        By explicitly guaranteeing that each of the "traditionally
        noisy" minority groups gets recognized, the awards organizations
        can protect themselves against major outcry (of course there
        will always be quiet rumbling, no matter what they do).
        
        If we could just get people to stop categorizing themselves in
        rigid boundaries, the problem would go away.  If everyone
        thought of themselves just as "people" nobody would be offended
        just because no female homosexual black jewish socialist
        corporate lawyer from south Tennessee happened to win a music
        award... because whoever the winner was, it would always
        be "one of us", never "one of them". 
        
        	/dave

	    I believe the "black music" categorization is just a poor
	name for the several genres of music whose artists are usually
	black:  rhythm & blues, soul, funk, rap, and gogo.  There are
	other genres with plenty of black artists - blues, jazz, reggae,
	African music - that are usually mentioned as their own genres.
	    I do a radio show of "black music", but I don't call it
	that.  I usually describe it as ""funk, rap, & soul" (though I
	don't really do that much soul).  There's just no term to cover
	them all . . .

	    I don't think you have to be black to win a "black music"
	award.  I know that it's very rare for a black person to win
	a "mainstream" award.  (Wasn't Michael Jackson the first?)
	    Come to think of it, I think some awards call the "black
	music" award the "rhythm & blues" award.

	    As for division by sex, I don't think it's necessary.
	Maybe they want to keep two divisions so the show will last
	longer?  (Or perhaps they don't want to face up to the fact
	that Meryl Streep would blow everybody out of the water?)
			<_Jym_>

    The American Music Awards have categories for best black male performer
    and best black female performer (at the very least - there might
    be others specifically for blacks). The nominees and winners of
    these awards are chosen by popular vote of the American public.
    
    I don't like it, especially since many of the performers nominated
    in the best black categories also compete with everyone else in
    the best act or best pop performer categories. It just doesn't make
    sense. I also find it odd that the blacks themselves don't stop
    this and instead encourage competition among all performers without
    regard for race.
    
    When The Color Purple was stiffed in last year's Oscars, many blacks
    called it racist. I don't agree with the film's not winning any
    Oscars, but I also don't agree with calling that racist. At least,
    I dearly hope it isn't racist. I like to think the film lost because
    it had a crew of some of the most talented professionals and most
    promising actors in the industry translating a great story onto
    the big screen. I mean, that's enough reason for anyone to lose,
    is it not?  8-) The Academy treated Barbra the same way with Yentl....
    
    Lisa

    However, doesn't it help sometimes to overemphasize a minority group?
    I think that recognizing minorities will help others in the same field,
    and eventually allow them to compete equitably with the majority.
    Just using statistics, if black performers only made up 10% of the
    actors, the chances of them being recognized is 10%.  However,
    creating a category just for them allowed them to get recognition, and
    encouraged others.  This then probably helped eliminate the discrimination
    that existed.  Perhaps they don't need this extra recognition anymore,
    I don't know.  

    I have always felt that if things aren't equal, you
    need to tilt the scales a little in favor of the discriminated group
    before the scales can become level.  This is why I support work quotas
    for minorities.  If there weren't quotas, it would be too easy for
    people not to hire (for example) women EE's since there are very few of
    them.  Well, there are probably very few since women might perceive that
    they don't have any opportunities in that field.  We must never under-
    estimate the power of role models in helping minorities, and there
    won't be role models until you get them in the field, and being
    recognized for their work.


    ...Karen

    (p.s. I use the term "minority" for women in the sense that women are
    discriminated against, not literally.)

    RE: 10.
    
    Yes, it sometimes does help to overemphasize a disadvantaged group.
    
    But, having a "Best Black" or "Best Hispanic" seems to me to be
    saying "They're not good enough so we have to have a special category
    for them".
    
    Sidney Poitier needed no help to win an OSCAR, Cicely Tyson and
    several other black women needed no help to be nominated.  It is
    a sad fact that there are few good solid roles for non-white actors
    in Hollywood.  But let's work on that aspect of the problem let's
    not belittle their real accomplishments by giving them a second-best
    award.
    
    Quotas for employment opportunities may be necessary in order to
    overcome prejudicial hiring practices, but that is a long way from
    having TOKEN blacks or Hispanics in the workplace or in awards shows.
    
    BTW:  I think that all of the so-called awards shows are a lot of
    bunk and hype -- It is meaningless to say "Best Picture", "Best
    Actor", etc.  It would be much more realistic and meaningful for
    the Acadamy of whatever to issue a certificate or citation to anyone
    who did an especially outstanding job in his field (actor, director,
    whatever).  Let the nominations be the honor, why have a popularity
    contest which may invalidate the result.
    

>   whatever).  Let the nominations be the honor, why have a popularity
>   contest which may invalidate the result.
        
        Because popularity contests are big business.  "Everybody"
        likes to watch the stars get up and sing or dance or fall
        on their faces, or whatever it is they do, and so advertisers
        will pay the networks lots of money to interrupt the dumb
        show with dumb commercials, and the stars get their meaningless
        awards and get to say dumb things to the audience, and basically
        everyone's happy: including me, because I ignore the whole
        mess.
        
        Does that sound cynical?  Oh, gee... :-)
        
        	/dave