Over on Brad DeLong’s Journal, Brad announces the launching of “The Economists’ Voice,” an online “forum for readable ideas and analysis by leading economists on vital issues of our day.” It sounds like a good idea to me, and I hope it does well. I have a complaint, however.
Here are the regular columnists on the roster so far:
– Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate, Columbia University
– Steven Salop, Georgetown Law Center
– Richard A. Posner, Judge, 7th Circuit; Lecturer, U. of Chicago
– Peter Orszag, Brookings Institution
– Douglass C. North, Nobel Laureate, Washington University
– Barry Nalebuff, Yale University
– Paul Krugman, Princeton University
– R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
– Bruno Frey, University of Zurich
– Aaron Edlin, UC Berkeley
– Michael Boskin, Stanford University & Hoover Institution
– J. Bradford Delong, UC Berkeley
– Ian Ayres, Yale University
– George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate, UC Berkeley
– Steven Salop, Georgetown Law Center
– Richard A. Posner, Judge, 7th Circuit; Lecturer, U. of Chicago
– Peter Orszag, Brookings Institution
– Douglass C. North, Nobel Laureate, Washington University
– Barry Nalebuff, Yale University
– Paul Krugman, Princeton University
– R. Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
– Bruno Frey, University of Zurich
– Aaron Edlin, UC Berkeley
– Michael Boskin, Stanford University & Hoover Institution
– J. Bradford Delong, UC Berkeley
– Ian Ayres, Yale University
– George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate, UC Berkeley
Not one female economist is included. Not one.
Sheesh.
It’s a well-known fact that the male brain is wired for dismal sciences, while female brains prefer more chipper pasttimes, such as interior decoration. It’s a result of the millennia we spent hunting giraffes on the veldt, where male brains were forced to adapt pattern-recognition modules in the medulla cepusculata to the dreary task of apportioning their long-necked kills–a task inextricably linked with the masculine traits of aggression and territoriality. –It is worth noting that the communist dictum, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” is a pollution of male-brain dismalness with uncharacteristic female-brain chipperness. Something to think about!
This ages-old evolutionary dictum is also why men kick ass in chess. Boo-yah!
Don’t you mean, “…medulla crepusculata…”?
“Leading economists”, it says here.
I don’t know of any leading economists who are female. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t any, but I can’t think of one.
I note also, no economists from developing countries or those who have made development their major focus.
Actually, by my count — using facial hair (beard, mustache, or both) as a proxy for gender — I count perfect balance. Six with facial hair, six without.
http://www.bepress.com/ev/columnists.html
Nancy, can’t Joseph Stiglitz reasonably claim to have made developing economies a major focus?
Can we declare Arundhati Roy and Winona LaDuke honorary economists and get them on the blog ? I actually don’t know if either of them would consider it an honor, but at least then the blog would be something I’d give a flying leap about reading. :p
Seems to me that, maybe, Laura D’Andrea Tyson might count as somehow qualified for a forum such as this, no?
Tyson! How embarassing. I’m applying to be a doctoral student at Berkeley and she is one of the people I’d be working with (fingers crossed).
Never mind!
First of all, you all are hilarous.
Secondly, what about Martha Nussbaum? She’s not an economist per se, but she published a book on economy, so maybe that makes her an economist per se. I think she’s brilliant.
Sticking only with PhD economists, how about Nancy Folbre, Claudia Golden, Caroline Hoxby, Barbara Bergmann, June O’Neil (who’s a right-winger – see, I’m being nonpartisan!), Esther Duflo… and I’m not super-familiar with the field. I’m sure the organizers of the new forum, all of whom are experts, could come up with many more if they tried.
Or how ’bout Margaret Jane Radin at Stanford or Elizabeth Anderson at Michigan? Either would dearly love to deal with the likes of Posner I’d guess.
Amp, my bad! For some reason, although his name was first, I didn’t note Stiglitz. D’oh!
However, this list seems to have no obvious development specialists who originate from developing countries or non-Western countries. I am not an economist, so don’t recognise every last name on the list. I guess I would like to see Sen on the list.
Can we declare Arundhati Roy and Winona LaDuke honorary economists and get them on the blog ?
At first I thought this comment sought to water down the purpose of the new site. But, Posner is on the list, so why not? Sure, he knows a lot about ecconomic theory, but he applies it to law, not economics, so he isn’t actually a, you know, economist.
Hey, the Kerry campaign picked up my story on stagnated worker bee wages – granted 6 months after I first noticed the trend. Does that make me an honorary economist? As an archaeologist, I’m one of the leading authorities on wampum (which was generally produced by women, btw), and we all know that Europeans made wampum into money. Hence I’m an expert on early American monetary policy, aka economics.
Shoot, doesn’t fly, neh? Well, back to my armchair.
there’s also Deirdre McCloskey… btw, s/he’s transgender, MtF, if that makes a difference.
yo, alsis38, howzabout we just get Roy & LaDuke to do a blog together? who needs the economists? ;)
&, yes, Stiglitz has focussed on developing countries. but that’s a far cry from having economists actually from developing countries on the masthead. seems like it wouldn’t be so difficult, given the internet, to research & recruit such economists… maybe it’s on their “to do” list?
http://plsc.uark.edu/fw/women_economists_have_not_advanc.htm
So, a bunch of guys got together and decided to develop an online publication discussing economics. What’s the big deal? Does that make them anti-feminist? Are they required to address certain topics? Obviously, many of the women listed above are quite qualified to join any private panel discussing such issues. Is the panel obligated to invite them? Are the women obligated to accept? Considering their CVs, I don’t think economists like Hoxby, Tyson or Bergmann are going to feel inadequate by not being on the panel. Hell, maybe they declined. What’s the issue here?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/09/the_economists_.html
A Tocqueville gem-
“When inequality is the common law of a society, the strongest inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on a level, the least of them wound it. That is why the desire for equality always becomes more insatiable as equality is greater.”
Cheers.
Kerry never returns *my* calls, MB. Possibly because one of my more loving terms for him is “Stuffed Shirt.” Can I have your autograph ? :D
oh yay, an old dead white guy reeking of privilege minimizes the importance of equality. THAT’s gonna convince us, bilbo. way to go. *applauds*
This is probably heresy, but my immediate reaction is ‘so what’? I know very little about economics, but regardless of the subject matter, if I want to read about X subject, I don’t generally have any burning desire to read the opinion of women on X subject.
If X subject were pregnancy, or the experience of women in industry, I might raise an eyebrow. If X subject were feminism, I can see there is an argument (qv the recent debate about Ampersand as a male representing a feminist view point on a radio talk show). The fact that that kind of argument even happens is one of the major reasons why I don’t identify as a feminist myself, mind you, but I am aware of the reasons put forward for why men can’t or shouldn’t talk about feminism.
But economics? Why on earth should the gender of the writer matter?
And then we get a comment like Dana’s above: automatically dismissing a viewpoint just because it was expressed by an old dead white guy reeking of privilege. If someone white and male happens to be talking sense, why on earth should his opinion have less weight than anyone else expressing the same thing? And if he happens not to be talking sense, you might as well point out the flaws in his argument, rather than the irrelevant fact that he happens to represent a privileged group.
It’s important, Individ-ewe-al, for the very reason you’re illustrating: assuming that women only *need* to be heard when the topics are “women’s issues” while if the topic is “universal”, it’s okay to only get a men’s POV. The sad fact is, throughout history, allowing men to speak “universally” has nearly always resulted in their speaking for men about men, and being totally blinkered to anything else. There’s nothing “universal” or generalisable about it.
“If someone white and male happens to be talking sense, why on earth should his opinion have less weight than anyone else expressing the same thing?”
The point is, he *wasn’t* talking sense, he was using his position of privilege to dismiss the (possibly quite legitimate) claims of those who feel they are being treated unfairly. That quote didn’t originate in a vacuum–it was in response to a situation that was clear at least in his own mind, and we only have *his* word for it that the people involved actually were on an equal footing.
Also, bilbo’s use of it implies that he thinks women and men are now on a nearly equal footing, which is absolutely preposterous if you look at any stats, facts, reports, etc. etc. etc.
Damn, I wish there were an “edit” function here!
Just wanted to add these questions for those of you who think only including male economists is “no big deal”: What would your (honest) response be if only women economists were featured on that blog? Would you still see it as being about “economics in general” or would you see it as being about “women’s economic issues”? I’m betting on the latter.
On the one hand it doesn’t really matter whether a decent point is made by a male or a female voice, and I haven’t noticed that female economists are somehow more likely to bring a unique perspective to the discipline (unlike, say, female anthropologists). I have a female Ph.D. economist friend who argues on behalf of the Chicago School with the best of them.
On the other hand, even in disciplines where neutrality of viewpoint reigns there is a powerful force that frequently causes men to overlook the accomplishments of women. It is just this type of clustering that is based on a commonality that has nothing to do with viewpoint and everything to do with social comfort. It’s no less powerful for being invisible and not the product of conscious intention to slight.
This is why it requires conscious effort to make sure that the female (or African American or third world) contenders are not being overlooked. Perhaps this is just a start up group, however, and they will try to expand the orbit as the venture takes off.
Well, you know, Crys, that if it were all women economists, it would be a “special interest group.” But men are the universally accepted spokesme– uhhhh, people, for us all. That’s why the group will not be called the “Male Economist’s Voice.” Mustn’t be “divisive,” doncha’ know… [chortle chortle]
[pours a slug of bourbon in her morning coffee and hopes that the boss doesn’t notice :p]
Hey, pass some of that this way!
Thanks to people for being prepared to give thoughtful responses to a declared non-feminist; I like that about Alas.
I see no reason why a woman’s point of view on economics would be any different from a man’s. Or rather, their points of view would be different, but not along gender lines, just in the way that any two economists have different views. There’s no ‘mainstream economics’ and ‘women’s economics’; economics, by definition, affects the whole population and I really don’t think that being female gives women any particular insight into anything. I agree with Barbara on that point. It’s pretty much impossible to talk about economics and only talk about men, even if Crys’ contention that men only speak about men is true.
Crys’ criticism of Bilbo is one I respect: his comment is based on the assumption that women have achieved equality with men, and she has facts to back up that this is not the case. That’s a valid criticism, whereas I have an issue with Dana’s implication that he’s quoting someone white and male, therefore he must be wrong.
Had all the econmists on the blog been female, I doubt I’d even have noticed it, unless of course I saw a post here celebrating the fact as a triumph of feminism. (And I would have been skeptical about that claim, too.)
It is possible that some men feel less comfortable with opinions expressed by women rather than men. I remain to be convinced that insisting that every group, however small, must include at least one woman is the answer to that. Especially if you start dragging in ethnic groups and who knows what other minorities as well. A group of a dozen people is never going to be completely demographically representative.
“There’s no ‘mainstream economics’ and ‘women’s economics’; economics, by definition, affects the whole population and I really don’t think that being female gives women any particular insight into anything.”
There I would have to disagree: sure, there are aspects of economics that are gender-neutral (if you will), but the focus that is given to some aspects, or sectors of the economy, or the definitions of what constitutes “good” in economic terms is very *much* determined by gender (as well, as race, class, etc). To give an example, I’m pretty sure that if we heard a group of people from a country where most of the population lives below the poverty line give a speech on what would constitute improvements in the way the world economy functions, it would have precious little to do with the suggestions for improvement that economists from a rich country would make.
“I have an issue with Dana’s implication that he’s quoting someone white and male, therefore he must be wrong.”
I can’t speak for Dana (I don’t even know her), but I didn’t understand her post that way. I understood her simplying pointing out that quoting someone who (it is well-known) is a member of an elite class *as a defence* of that class’s privilege…well, I’m sure I don’t have to spell it out. It definitely has overtones of “Let them eat cake.”
“I remain to be convinced that insisting that every group, however small, must include at least one woman is the answer to that.”
The problem is one of focus. If only men are present, then they are going to decide on what issues are “important” from a male perspective. Yes, the economy affects everyone, but not everyone is affected by it in the same way. It’s the deciding on whose experiences to document that is the question.
yo bilbo –
So, a bunch of guys got together and decided to develop an online publication discussing economics. What’s the big deal?… What’s the issue here?
no big deal, they just need to change the title of their publication &/or change their lineup. as Ampersand made clear in his concise title to this post the question is one of claiming to be the voice of economists. and given the lineup, it’s obvious they’re certainly not speaking for economists as a whole. perhaps if they called it “white male economists from english-speaking countries voice” – it’s a mouthful, but it is neither misleading nor misrepresentational as their current title is. if fact, why not just call it “Yo, Economics, dawg!” what’s the need to claim authority to speak for such a wide & diverse group of people?
and Individ-ewe-al –
the reason why someone might take into account the class, gender, or whatever of anyone giving a statement on any given issue is because there’s no such thing as “common sense.” people are conditioned by (yes, & condition) their environments. political, social & cultural aspects of our environment are all imbued with the realities of such systems as class, race, gender, etc. so, yes, someone like Tocqueville, who travelled in specific circles of society, might not be the best person to comment on the entirety of a society he has not experienced. i’m trying to remember here how many slaves Tocqueville personally spoke with, out of hearing of the master of course…
also, a nice metaphor does not necessarily lead to an accurate conclusion. it’s nice to think of equality as being a matter of balancing scales (nice & tidy) but the reality of the situation is a bit more complex.
anyways, even if Tocqueville is right, it sounds to me more like he’s saying that the desire for equality is both great & fierce, & will brook no insult, no matter how small. so, i’m not sure how it disqualifies peoples current concerns about contemporary manifestations of sexism, etc. why shouldn’t we fight for & continue to pursue ever greater equality? or are you saying we have “just enough” equality. & if so, please speak for yourself, because we’re not even halfway there as far as i’m concerned….
xtra credit: explain the statement “When inequality is the common law of a society, the strongest inequalities do not strike the eye” in the context of slave rebellions (dating back to the Zanj uprising) &/or the origins of the Anti-Slavery Society.
oops… just to clarify
when i start talking about “a nice metaphor” i am back to talking about bilbo’s Tocqueville quote… not continuing to talk about the points Individ-ewe-al made…
Some women economists *may* be more likely to notice portions of human economic activity that are NOT noticed by most male economists – the unpaid labor sector. Coincidentally, the major providers of unpaid labor (child and elder care, child education, food and clothing preparation, housecleaning and maintainance) are women, worldwide and in the US. If you don’t think those things have value, maybe you don’t think that fast food diners are valid sites of economic activity either.
Women certainly have a different perspective on economic issues, including the value of work done in the home. Is it impossible for men to do research on the potential effects of including things like cooking and childcare done in the home as part of GDP, or as part of another measure of national economic health? Of course not. Are women more likely to think of such an issue and pursue research on the topic? Yes. Not because men are evil, or dumb, or anything else–but because women spend far more time performing those than men do, and so the value of those tasks is far more visible to them.
Other issues that are far more likely to be studied by women than men: wage inequality, the effects of reproductive freedom on economic well-being (on both a personal and national scale), the monetary effect of discrimination (gender, racial, etc.) on companies.
Also, people who have different experiences see the world differently. Gender has a huge influence on the way people view the world. Does it really make sense to have an academic debate among a bunch of people who come from largely similiar experiences?
My point was not that women as a group don’t have a different viewpoint on economic issues, but it is my experience that female economists don’t particularly reflect that possible difference any better than male economists, but then, my experience is definitely narrow, colored by having some seriously free market oriented female economists as friends. I do think that, in contrast, third world economists really do have a different perspective (for instance, my personal hero, Amartya Sen) and some really do strive to be a voice for people whose voices are usually not taken into account.
My main point is that women’s accomplishments in the field of economics should not be overlooked whether excluding them misses an important point of view or not. Obviously, if it does, then it’s even worse not to include them.
Maya, do you have any empirical evidence for your claim that women are more likely to study those topics?
I don’t believe that they are, but I am open to being convinced.
The reason why I don’t think female economists are more likely to study those topics than male ones is that female economists, although they are women, are not necessarily the same women who bear the brunt of unpaid labor. Things like class, education and marital status all play a role in the amount of unpaid labor a woman performs, and it seems to be that female economists would be less likely to do much unpaid labor than other women.
However, Barbara is right in saying that overlooking female economists is a problem even if they don’t have a “special” point of view, as it is an injustice to them as individuals.
The purpose of having a diverse body of people discussing the topic is that it forecloses the possibility of missing out on a point of view. All intellectual activity is inherently incomplete; the available data is always infinite, and the available human memory and processing time is always finite. In many areas – even most areas – of inquiry, the cost of foreclosing one particular viewpoint (conservatism or faith or feminism or individualism or socialism or whatever) is higher than the cost of removing redundancy of viewpoints.
Say you have ten black Catholic socialist lesbians of equal professional competence in your economics council. Removing one of them may well cause you to lose a particular viewpoint or insight that individual was bringing to the table; however, the odds are very good that replacing one of them with a white atheist capitalist heterosexual male will more than make up for it, because of the many unduplicated viewpoints that he will bring to the table. This is not ALWAYS the case but it is very OFTEN the case. This is the underlying justification for genuine diversity initiatives.
Economics is in fact an area where the social characteristics of the practitioner can have a significant impact on their performance and work. If this was a panel on nuclear physics, well, then it wouldn’t matter a damn that no women (or no men) were on it, because gender contributes exactly zero to any discussion of nuclear physics. But it does contribute to economics, and so the absence of any women is cause for at least a raised eyebrow and a polite question.
Much as it pains me to say it.
Dana- I don’t think Tocqueville’s point was that equality is unimportant or an invalid pursuit. I think what he was saying was that when there is widespread in equality in a society, it is viewed as the norm(“that’s just the way it is”), but when that inequality (rightly) comes to be viewed as unacceptable and is removed, then vigiliance is honed and then even the slightest perception of inequality becomes the focus. It stands to reason. And I maintain that this is a good example. There is no demonstrable tolerance for, nor aim towards, inequality in the actions of these men any more than that which could be perceived in the numerous women’s business groups that have formed over the years.
As for the notion of them attempting to speak for *all* economists solely by dint of the name they have chosen for their endeavor, I have to respectfully disagree. It is not uncommon for publications to choose for themselves names that attempt to communicate their focus. They are economists and these are their voices, period.
As for Crys T’s dismissal of the quote, there is nothing at all preposterous in the notion that equality between the sexes is “preposterous”, I’d be happy to discuss any “stats, facts, reports, etc. etc. etc.” that purport otherwise. I’m sure we could find imbalances favoring both sides.
“What would your (honest) response be if only women economists were featured on that blog? Would you still see it as being about “economics in general” or would you see it as being about “women’s economic issues”?”
While irrelevant in accurately defining the aims of the publication in question, this does seem to be the crux of the discussion at hand. The notion that one is able to divine the intent of an individual or group solely based on race, gender etc., IS, by definition, prejudiced.
“xtra credit: explain the statement “When inequality is the common law of a society, the strongest inequalities do not strike the eye” in the context of slave rebellions (dating back to the Zanj uprising) &/or the origins of the Anti-Slavery Society.des.”
I think the issue would be how long those conditions were allowed to exist untrammeled in the common law of “society”. There’s no question that that view was not held by the enslaved groups in question, but society as a whole viewed their condition as quite normal. That’s what they had to rebel against.
I think the notion that it is “impossible” for a man to possible understand the views of women with regard to economics is patently sexist. This is exactly the kind of sentiment that feminists have been fighting against for years.
Perhaps we should let this publication get a few issues under its belt before casting judgement.
Looks like I included one too many uses of “preposterous in the above post. My apologies. I hope that wasn;t too unclear.
I don’t think Tocqueville’s point was that equality is unimportant or an invalid pursuit. I think what he was saying was that when there is widespread in equality in a society, it is viewed as the norm(“that’s just the way it is”), but when that inequality (rightly) comes to be viewed as unacceptable and is removed, then vigiliance is honed and then even the slightest perception of inequality becomes the focus.
I agree with your interpretatino of what Tocqueville’s quote meant. What I find interesting is that he must have written that in the 1830s, or perhaps the 1840s (if memory serves, that’s when he was writing). Unless he meant the statement to be a matter of pure theory, which seems unlikely, then in the 1840s, he was worrying that the movement for equality had gone too far.
With the benefit of hindsight, can you name a single pro-equality movement that had gone too far in the 1840s?
There is no demonstrable tolerance for, nor aim towards, inequality in the actions of these men any more than that which could be perceived in the numerous women’s business groups that have formed over the years.
Of course there’s a demonstrated tolorance for inequality. The very fact that they decided to get a group of prominent economists together and either did not notice or did not mind that there were no women demonstrates a tolorance for inequality. The group is unequal, and they are tolorating that inequality.
Did you perhaps mean that there is no proof that any of these men are personally prejudiced against women? If that’s what you meant, then I’d agree with you. Is that what you meant?
I think the notion that it is “impossible” for a man to possible understand the views of women with regard to economics is patently sexist.
With respect, did anyone here express that notion?
“there is nothing at all preposterous in the notion that equality between the sexes is “preposterous”, I’d be happy to discuss any “stats, facts, reports, etc. etc. etc.” that purport otherwise. I’m sure we could find imbalances favoring both sides.”
Where the hell do you people live? It evidently isn’t on Earth, where even mainstream media is constantly reporting the results of studies which consistently show more women than men below the poverty line, wage gaps, patterns of sexism in the workplace, etc etc etc. Crawl out of your cave and read a newspaper–hell, there are large number you can even access, with their archives online. Or go to the library and read some sociological journals. Aren’t you a health care professional? Then I’m sure you have access to professional journals that would have at least some articles of that nature. The only people who believe there is anything like “equality” on this earth are those who are so grossly uninformed.
“The notion that one is able to divine the intent of an individual or group solely based on race, gender etc., IS, by definition, prejudiced.”
I also suggest you read up on the fallacy of the “colour-blind” or “gender-blind” approach and how it actually maintains inequalities, not eliminates them.
I’d also suggest you read Amp’s “Male Privilege Checklist” which he re-posted here about a week ago, so you don’t even have to do a search.
“I think the notion that it is “impossible” for a man to possible understand the views of women with regard to economics is patently sexist.”
Only the elite power group is the position of enforcing consequences for its prejudice. This is why, as Spike Lee claimed Black people can’t be racist: they can have anti-white views, but those are formed in reaction to oppression, and in any case, they are not in the position of being able to exact widespread social consequences for their anti-white feeling–while whites are of course able to exact heavy social consequences for anti-black feeling. The same is true with sexism: there is no widespread social consequence for a given woman’s anti-male feeling, therefore there is nothing that can be meaningfully called “sexism”.
And, btw, you should read some history as well. You might find out how men, in their arrogant assumption that they knew fuck-all about women, condemned millions upon millions of women to misery, pain and death. Just a suggestion.
Where the hell do you people live? It evidently isn’t on Earth…
With all due respect, Crys T, I prefer that the comments on my blog be as civil as people are able to make them. A comment like the one I quoted above is too insulting for this forum.
Thanks.
hello bilbo-
I think the issue would be how long those conditions were allowed to exist untrammeled in the common law of “society”. There’s no question that that view was not held by the enslaved groups in question, but society as a whole viewed their condition as quite normal. That’s what they had to rebel against.
society as a whole… i’m interested in how you’re conceiving of the enslaved groups in their relationship to the “whole”? i mean, they constituted more than half the population in many places that “society” could be said to exist, right? so i would expect that if they didn’t consider slavery “normal” the whole would represent this in some way… unless, of course, we’re not including them as meaningful voices within the whole.
so, i guess i’m curious about what you are basing your notion of “society” upon? the records left by… well, men in power, right? i’m assuming this, b/c i’ve read a fair number of slave memoirs & accounts but i confess that i can’t recall a one of them who spoke of their slavery as “normal.”
however, i do recall more than a number of upstanding members of “society” throughout history who, upon exposure to the realities of slavery, reacted with horror, sorrow & outrage. the question of what people (a fairly wide group of individuals) thought was “normal” & what various men in power argued about or addressed in formal modes of written &/or recorded verbal communication is quite another. i mean, did the Anti-Slavery Society magically create out of nothing a movement to oppose & abolish slavery? was Spartacus just a really really charismatic guy? were the Irish just being stubborn? what was the point of the Judaic Jubilee?
It is not uncommon for publications to choose for themselves names that attempt to communicate their focus. They are economists and these are their voices, period.
that would be all well & good if they were calling themselves “Economists Voices.” but they’re not. they are, for all intensive purposes, claiming to represent, to be the voice of, economists as a whole. again, i would like to offer forth my suggestion of “Yo, Economics, dawg!” which communicates the focus (economics) quite forcefully without the implied claim of group authority.
i, personally, would stop casting judgement (actually i like to skip judgements, especially if they’re flat & round with a good edge – it’s all in the wrist) if they would create something, an article, a brief statement, anything, that acknowledges their desire & the necessity to incorporate diversity into their ranks, even if only for the strictly practical reasons that Robert (apparently painfully) cited above. though it would be nicer if they were simply moved to do so by concerns of equality & social justice.
actually, Robert brought up a good point. has anyone communicated with the “Voice” (or, as i like to call them, the “Dawg! Patrol”)? perhaps they would find this discussion of interest?
btw, bilbo, i loved your book “There & Back Again” – really great story, especially the whole part with the dragon… ;)
Amp-
“Unless he meant the statement to be a matter of pure theory, which seems unlikely, then in the 1840s, he was worrying that the movement for equality had gone too far.
With the benefit of hindsight, can you name a single pro-equality movement that had gone too far in the 1840s?”
My interpretation is that it was pure theory. There is little doubt that what qualified as the “least” of inequalities in the 1840’s was quite different from today. I think his point was the contrast between the greatest and least(or none), which I do think applies to our discussion.
Again, I don’t think that he was diminishing the importance of equality, so I don’t think that he was implying that equality had gone too far. His quote is more intended to convey the views of *others* toward perceived inequalities. Then again, one could certainly argue that what constituted the “least of them” to Tocqueville at the time it was penned(as is mirrored in this issue), but I still think the point applies.
“Did you perhaps mean that there is no proof that any of these men are personally prejudiced against women? If that’s what you meant, then I’d agree with you. Is that what you meant?”
Isn’t that the point? There hasn’t even been any discussion at all on the *content* of their publication.
I think the implication here has been that they are incompetent in addressing the views of women and will, instead, focus only on those of men. I don;t see any evidence of that intent.
me-
I think the notion that it is “impossible” for a man to possible understand the views of women with regard to economics is patently sexist.
amp-
With respect, did anyone here express that notion?
“Is it impossible for men to do research on the potential effects of including things like cooking and childcare done in the home as part of GDP, or as part of another measure of national economic health? Of course not. Are women more likely to think of such an issue and pursue research on the topic? Yes.”
Posted by: Maya at September 22, 2004 09:16 AM
I read through this too quickly and misinterpreted. I confused unlikely with impossible. haste makes waste. my bad.
me-
“The notion that one is able to divine the intent of an individual or group solely based on race, gender etc., IS, by definition, prejudiced.”
Crys T-
“I also suggest you read up on the fallacy of the “colour-blind” or “gender-blind” approach and how it actually maintains inequalities, not eliminates them.
I’d also suggest you read Amp’s “Male Privilege Checklist” which he re-posted here about a week ago, so you don’t even have to do a search.”
I suggest that you read the actual views of the economists in question.
The article below illustrates why it is important to ensure that economic impact ON WOMEN is considered, and frankly, women and some third world men are more likely to do this than first world men. They may not get credit for it, though, at least at first. I am not trying to deny the insights of some men like Amartya Sen and like the microcredit man from Pakistan (Grameen Bank). Note, both are developing-world men, not first-world men. I guess I was astounded when Sen got the Nobel Prize, probably a first for developing-world economist. True, Stiglitz belatedly saw the light, but most first-worlders are not going to note developing-world and women’s economic issues.
From The Guardian (UK) 9/224/04, reprinted at
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-06.htm
When He Eats Little, She Eats Less
Developing Countries’ Crippling Debt hits Women Hardest. And the Policies of the IMF and World Bank Make Matters Worse
by Noreena Hertz
At the International Monetary Fund, only one in nine senior employees are women. At the World Bank, less than 1% of the staff work on issues relating to gender. In the world of international finance it is men in grey suits who manage world debt. But on the ground, in the world’s poorest countries, it is women who shoulder the developing world’s debt burden. Make no mistake, debt is a feminist issue. ……. for rest, go to link
I don’t buy into the theory that people only talk about people like themselves (for some rather arbitrary value of like). There seems to be an assumption that men only talk about men, either because they are sexist or because they are unconsciously conditioned by a sexist society. And women not only do, but should, only talk about women. That seems wrong to me.
I agree with Linnet that female economists have no particular connection with the women who are most damaged by social sexism and discrimination. I can’t imagine why they would automatically be expected to be more sympathetic than men to poor, uneducated women just because they share the same gender. Successful economists are on the whole relatively privileged members of society (including third world economists and female economists and black lesbian economists). That doesn’t mean they can’t talk about the economics of poverty, exploitation and under-privilege.
Partly because I reject this basic assumption that people only see people like themselves, I also reject Robert’s fine-sounding arguments for ‘diversity initiatives’. But also partly because trying to constitute groups on the basis of irrelevant diversity seems to me both stupid and counterproductive. It is reasonable that a group of economists should include a mix of capitalists and socialists. There seems no compelling reason why it should include a mix of men and women, black and white, gay and straight, able-bodied and disabled, tall and short, fat and skinny and who knows what else. And actually IME doing so leads to more discrimination, not less. ‘We’ve already got one gay person and they’re only about 10% of society, so we can justify rejecting a second gay person for any group smaller than 20.’
The other problem with this approach is that, in reality, there isn’t an unlimited supply of people of equal professional competence. Diversity initiatives mean that someone who is in a smallish minority ends up being part of every single group, whatever their professional ability or otherwise, just because they help to fill quotas.
“There seems to be an assumption that men only talk about men, either because they are sexist or because they are unconsciously conditioned by a sexist society.”
Actually, there have been many socio/psychological studies done that show this is actually the case much of the time. So, if people are assuming it, i’ts only because we have ample evidence that it’s true.
“And women not only do, but should, only talk about women.”
I don’t think that’s what people are saying. They are saying that because men so often do neglect issues that affect women (and children of both sexes), it’s a good idea to at least include women in something that you’re claiming is of general interest. If you’re not willing to do so, at least have the decency to label it “Men’s Issues in Economics”.
“I can’t imagine why they would automatically be expected to be more sympathetic than men to poor, uneducated women just because they share the same gender.”
I agree with that point. I’d also like to point out that there are many feminists who emphasise the need to include the voices of women of all colours and classes.
“Partly because I reject this basic assumption that people only see people like themselves, I also reject Robert’s fine-sounding arguments for ‘diversity initiatives’. But also partly because trying to constitute groups on the basis of irrelevant diversity”
“Irrelevant diversity”?!!? Who decides what is “relevant” or not when it comes to diversity? As someone with many ties to non-mainstream cultures, it really gets up my nose when white English-speaking, mainly middle-class Americans assume they know what’s important to people of other classes, ethnicities, or those of us who live in other parts of the world. You *don’t* know, and you *aren’t* capable of speaking for those people–especially when most of the time, you aren’t even aware that those people actually exist. You don’t know the cultures, you don’t understand the values, and you flat out don’t know what’s important to them. Why the holy hell should you have the right to speak for them?
“It is reasonable that a group of economists should include a mix of capitalists and socialists.”
Are those the only possible orientations? They may be the ones that come most easily to mind, but in order to get a truly wide-ranging set of viewpoints, you’re going to have to deal with that pesky “diversity” issue again.
“There seems no compelling reason why it should include a mix of men and women, black and white, gay and straight, able-bodied and disabled, tall and short, fat and skinny and who knows what else.”
There may not seem to be a reason to YOU, but your viewpoint respresents only a tiny fraction of a percentage of all humans, so…..please, speak for yourself only.
“And actually IME doing so leads to more discrimination, not less. ‘We’ve already got one gay person and they’re only about 10% of society, so we can justify rejecting a second gay person for any group smaller than 20.'”
Oh, come on, who here has argued that there must be strict quotas in relation to a particular group’s proportion in the society? No one. But the fact that such a strict system would lead to ridiculous measures in NO WAY excuses leaving out gay, black or female voices (for example) altogether. Just because there is no perfectly fair, easily workable system is also no reason to just accept the current, unfair status quo.
“The other problem with this approach is that, in reality, there isn’t an unlimited supply of people of equal professional competence.”
Oh, gee whiz, now why might THAT be????? Something to do with privilege??? Uneven playing fields??? Naked prejudice??? I really hate it when anti-progressives use the results of discrimination as an excuse for continuing to discriminate.
Crys, thanks for your response.
OK, I accept your assertion that there is a problem with men only talking about men. If this is the case, I would argue that the best way to deal with this is to challenge this narrow view, rather than reinforcing it. Supposing a particular man, however much he may be in the minority, starts talking about issues relevant to women. Are you going to confront him by telling him: You *don’t* know, and you *aren’t* capable of speaking for those people? You’re not allowing men to speak about women, even if they want to, and I still believe it is reasonable for them to want to.
I think privileged people should always speak out for non-privileged people. Because the whole thing about being non-privileged is that you have less of a voice. The need to include the voices of women of all colours and classes is an admirable goal. But someone who is a respected economist is by definition not working-class. Someone who has attained a senior academic position is someone who has managed to overcome discrimination; are you saying that such a person can not speak on behalf of people who are so crushed by discrimination that they have effectively no influence?
please, speak for yourself only
I apologize; I was speaking for myself only. I did not explicitly spell out that there is no reason which I find compelling etc. I’m still challenging other commenters to provide reasons why they, speaking as individuals, disagree with me, speaking as an individual.
who here has argued that there must be strict quotas in relation to a particular group’s proportion in the society? No one.
Nobody here has argued that, because most people here are people of good will who have no desire to discriminate and indeed who are trying to redress current injustice. My point is that such diversity initiatives in practice give ammunition to those who are bigoted and make the situation worse, even though they are of course well-intentioned.
I really hate it when anti-progressives use the results of discrimination as an excuse for continuing to discriminate.
I think you have misunderstood me here. Firstly, I would not consider myself anti-progressive. I believe that progress needs to be made, but I also happen to think that a lot of people in this debate are trying to head in a direction which I do not think will be ultimately helpful. That’s my opinion, of course, but it’s a different opinion from arguing that the status quo is good and nothing should be changed.
Secondly, when I stated that there isn’t an unlimited supply etc, I didn’t mean, there are few senior women economists therefore there is no need for women to be represented in blogs about economics. I agree that that would be an entirely fallacious argument. I meant that even in a Utopian society where there was a completely level playing field, there would still be a pretty small minority of, say, the black Catholic socialist lesbians who are respected economists mentioned in Robert’s comment. Hence, if groups are constituted on diversity criteria, there ends up being only one or two people who are suitable for pretty much every position out there. That’s why I want to dismiss some diversity criteria as essentially irrelevant, to avoid chopping the classifications up too finely.