From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!rit!cci632!dwp Wed Sep 16 21:22:26 EDT 1992
Article 6835 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.bio:3833 sci.skeptic:19738 soc.men:4754 soc.women:4474 comp.ai.philosophy:6835
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!rit!cci632!dwp
>From: dwp@cci632.cci.com (Dana Paxson)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Summary: gender bias, metaphor
Message-ID: <1992Sep9.124758.11996@cci632.cci.com>
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:47:58 GMT
References: <wentzell.78.715973345@ace.acadiau.ca> <MELBY.92Sep9005959@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP> <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,soc.men,soc.women
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Lines: 53

In article <1992Sep9.034138.15488@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>In article <MELBY.92Sep9005959@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP> melby@dove.yk.Fujitsu.CO.JP (John B. Melby) writes:
>>>I recently read an article which pointed out the bias in the college
>>>entrance tests (GMAT?? Sorry, I'm not American) towards males. For example,
>>>there were many analogies which dealt in sports terms.
>>
>>Perhaps a wider array of colorful terms (specifically, synonyms of
>>"to bludgeon") are used in sports than in most other American cultural
>>establishments? :-)
>
>That reminds me of once noticing that the English lexicon of verbs is
>asymmetrical with respect to winning contests of bloody force.  You
>can say in only three words that "Boston clobbered Philadelphia" or
>"Martina defeated Chris".  But you cannot say "Chris (lost to)
>Martina" in three words with Chris occupying the subject-case-slot.
>

Actually, a Chicago sportswriter found a way to do just this when the
Chicago Bears football team was having a bad year.  Reflecting on their
record, he wrote something like "The Bears overwhelmed one opponent,
whelmed three, and underwhelmed the rest."  But this was a kind of
inventiveness I haven't seen since.

>More generally, I have found only a very few verbs that reflect any
>appreciable discredit upon the subject-agent.  It is almost impossible
>to admit to a fault without using the passive, or other form of
>periphrase to be evasive.  Could this be a subtle way of imparting a
>society's values to its members?  Weird.
>

In this light, George Luger's (and another author's) book _Metaphors We
Live By_ makes good reading, especially when he analyzes argument as 
war.  The original post concerning test questions suggests that the
metaphors that frame our cognition have significant gender bias at a
practical level.  Are there other good readings on this?

The phrase "waging peace" contains a kind of conflict between conflict 
and resolution; and this dissonance is interesting, inviting further
exploration.  Could it suggest that we are moving toward non-conflict-
based thinking?


Dana Paxson
Network Applications Systems Group
Northern Telecom
97 Humboldt Street
Rochester, New York  14609
1 716 654-2588
dwp@cci.com

Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed above are mine personally,
	     and do not necessarily reflect the views of my 
	     employer.


