Subject: From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 04:11:30 est

Received: from sri-ai.arpa by csnet-relay.arpa id a004031; 2 Apr 85 3:09 EST
Date: Mon  1 Apr 1985 22:47-PST
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #44
To: AIList@SRI-AI
Received: from rand-relay by vpi; Tue, 2 Apr 85 04:00 EST

AIList Digest            Tuesday, 2 Apr 1985       Volume 3 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
  Linguistics - Sexism in English,
  Opinion - Sexism in AIList,
  Psychology - Imprinting & Humor

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1985 1952-PST (Sunday)
From: [email-masked] (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Hofstadter on sexism in the English language

     [Forwarded from net.women by Miriam Blatt <blatt@Glacier>.]
         [Excerpted from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The most interesting work of writing I have seen on sexism in the
English language is by Douglas Hofstadter (writing under the name
William Satire) and is called "A Person Paper on Purity in Language".
It can be found in his wonderful book "Metamagical Themas: Questing for
the Essence of Mind and Pattern".  Hofstadter is strongly in favor of
removing sexism from our language and writes about it in this paper
using biting sarcasm.  Included at the end of this message is an excerpt
from the paper (included without permission -- I don't think Hofstadter
would object).

                        Doug Alan
                         mit-eddie!nessus
                         Nessus@MIT-MC

  [I presume that this message is socially acceptable and of some
  relevance to an AIList issue on the psychology of sexism.  It has to
  do with AI only in that it touches on linguistics and psychology and
  was written by Doug Hofstadter, so I have reduced the extract to a
  single representative paragraph.  Anyone thinking of replying to this
  message should bear in mind that sexist language was discussed for
  many months in Human-Nets a couple of years ago; I am unaware of any
  single issue resolved by the debate.  -- KIL]

Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the
age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as
"chairwhite", "mailwhite", "repairwhite", "clergywhite", "middlewhite",
"Frenchwhite", "forwhite", "whitepower", "whiteslaughter",
"oneupswhiteship", "straw white", "whitehandle", and so on.  The
negrists claim that using the word "white", either in on its own or as a
component, to talk about *all* the members of the human species is
somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism.  Therefore the
libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere where "white" now
occurs.  Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this
preposterous.  There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are
created equal."  Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of
Indepedence well understood the poetry of our language.  Think how ugly
it would be to say "All persons are created equal.", or "All whites and
blacks are created equal."  Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you,
such phrases are redundant.  In most contexts, it is self-evident when
"white" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes
members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.            [...]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 85 21:54:10 est
From: BostonU SysMgr <[email-masked]>
Subject: Sexism, censorship and degrees of reaction

I have resisted thus far but now I give in to an opinion on the Sexist
Joke issue:

I for one am offended by such public displays of locker-room humour.  On
the other hand, I am offended by censorship. The obvious solution to
such a situation like this comes from the realization that one cannot
utilize as powerful and hard to apply instrument as the 'law' for
obnoxious and 'potentially' dangerous behavior (the law is always very
cautious when words like potentially have to be used.) The 'law' I
equate here with the moderator being asked to filter such jokes.

The error comes from the desire for authoritative revenge, either from
the police or a moderator. In a situatiion like this you are quite
powerful enough as human beings to correct this situation.

I simply suggest that it be left at the level of:

        1. If something offends you tell the offender and,
        if appropriate, the net audience.
        2. Remember the individual involved. Next time
        something comes up about that person you will
        know their character is probably suspect, or at
        the very least, their sense of judgement.

I for one would feel severely punished if someone so seriously
suspected my character. An entire audience like this would be
crushing.

Never doubt your power as a human being, nor that the power of your
words and opinions are at least as powerful as the ones that offended
you. Don't look so quickly to others for solutions. [Before the flames
start I am not advocating this for something like a violent act like
rape...call the cops and have the beast caged, they're paid to do that.]

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

I ain't afraid o' no paradox

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 85 12:18:15 PST (Thu)
From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam>
Subject: linguistics, humor, the subconsicious, pathogenic 'memes'

The meta-message of pollynomials...

    The humor (if any) in this story is based on the differences between
the syntactic level (mathematical language) and the semantic level (a story
about rape).  This story allows one to write, publish, and read this story
and always say, in the back of the mind (at the other level) "this only
a play on mathematical terms", and therefore one can talk about, think about,
accept and even enjoy this story about violent rape without having to
expose oneself as a sexist psychopath; it is (was) socially acceptable.

    Now, there are some people who don't yet understand why this story
is objectionable, they see it as just a harmless little play with words.
And perhaps those people really are not tuned into hearing it at its
true semantic level.  That is no excuse, because the semantic message of
the story can still be learned subconsciously.  [There is a second
level of meaning which says "it is ok to write, publish, and read this
type of material without comment, under the guise of 'humor'."]

   The objectionable elements of this story center around the rape myths
which are expressed quite blatently. These myths are: "She wanted to get
raped", "She deserved to get raped", "She had no choice but to allow the
rape", "She enjoyed getting raped", "The rapist is not to be blamed",
"The rapist is to be admired".  And the moral of the story states quite
clearly that rape and fear of rape should be used to control freedom.

    For those who contend that stories such as these are really
harmless, please consider this:  The story was written to be harmless
mathematical/linguistic humor, and yet, all these myths are expressed in
the story, without even trying; obviously THE AUTHORS KNEW ALL THESE
MYTHS, AT LEAST AT A SUBCONSCIOUS LEVEL.  And I suspect that they did
not pick them up in a textbook or a course on rape myths; THEY WERE
LEARNED BY READING OR HEARING STORIES JUST LIKE THIS!

   And now, a few words about humor and censorship.  As I mentioned
above, the humor (socio-linguistic survival value) of this story is
based on the switching between levels of meaning. The masquerade of
mathematical/linguistic wordplay allows this story to easily enter the
social--literary--cognitive system.  (and it is a masquerade, just try
publishing this under the subject line: "rape humor").  A vivid
analogy comes to mind; this story (and others like it) interact with the
system much as a virus interacts with biological systems.  [This analogy
is similar to the "memes" presented in Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"]

    The story is wrapped in a double protective cover of humor and
mathematics so it can slip past the usual antibodies of sensitivity or
sensability.  But underneath this coating is a cognitive "DNA sequence"
(meme) which when injected into and nutured by the host, produces
attitudes and behaviours which protect and perpetuate both the pathogen
(the story) and the disease (rape and fear).  Those who are surpised by
the flaming about the publication of this story, perhaps don't realize
that over the past twenty years, parts of our societal organism have
developed antibodies for this particular virus.

    So, should it be published? Maybe, but not as humor; it should be
quoted (mention vs use) as an example of vicious pseudo-humor.  If must
always be presented in the context of its reality, its disguise must be
removed.  The alternative is to publish it naively, and as in the case
of the AIList, it may become a relatively innocuous "vaccine".  The flurry
of commentary is, in fact, nothing more or less than the swarming of
antibodies to this virus, to engulf it, and label it as the pathogen
that it is.  And now, maybe a larger segment of the population will be
able to detect the antigens of rape myths.  There are those who will
fight for the rights of viruses to reproduce and otherwise express
themselves, but in this case, I think it can be shown that the organism
as a whole will be healthier if this infection can be eradicated.

Jeff Peck
(peck@sri-spam)

PostScript:

   For those who still claim that Polly Nomial is not a story about rape,
please reread the first paragraph: "our heroine is accosted by
villain..." Even without this statement of the plot, anyone who refuses
to accept that this is a story about rape is simply failing to
acknowledge the distinction between syntax and semantics, the use of
allegory and metaphor.  This story was not generated just by conjoining
mathematical phrases, it was clearly written to use all those phases to
describe a rape.  That is an important point, this story did not spring
from the pen (or keyboard) of "anonymous", it was written by a person,
or more likely, a team of persons, who thought that it would be funny.
This story reflects the attitudes and enlightenment of those people at
that time, in that society; and they clearly believed that rape was
humorous, justifiable [!!! -- KIL], etc.  In today's society such attitudes
must be exposed and identified as sick.

  [Very cleverly put, but under the syntactic sugar is a questionable
  premise: that anyone who enjoyed reading the story (even if female?)
  is a "sexist psychopath".  I found humor in the word play and novel
  semantic mappings in spite of the subject matter; perhaps I am just
  more sensitive to linguistic patterns than to social concerns, at
  least in the intellectual context of AIList peer discussion -- that
  doesn't mean I'm "sick" (I hope).  I think there is general agreement
  that the plot of the item (as opposed to its "message" or "intention",
  perhaps) concerned rape, that rape is abhorrent and a serious social
  problem and not a joking matter, that any message with intent to
  denigrate, subjugate, or offend is offensive, that the piece had
  little to do with AI, that it would have been more palatable if run
  with a commentary discussing its linguistic merits and decrying its
  subject matter, and finally that it would have been better for all
  concerned if I had kept it out of AIList.  A reasonable amount of
  protest, or "sensitization", was in order.  That having been done,
  let's get back to the theme of this list.  AIList is a forum for
  discussion of AI and information science; it has little capacity
  for social subversion or reform.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1985  03:11 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Imprinting and Humor

I don't think rape-jokes are a good idea, either.  In fact this is
discussed tangentially in Chapter 294 (seriously -- the chapters are
only 1 page long) of my almost-finished Society of Mind book.

   *****************************************************

                     TIME-SPANS of MEMORIES

Contemplate the plight of a mother with a new infant! The baby will
demand her time and attention for many years -- and sometimes she may
wonder why. ["Why must I do all this?" "How could this baby justify
such sacrifice."]  Then various answers might come to mind: ["Because
it will repay you some day,"] or ["This is to carry on our race"]. But
these are not the arguments that end the questioning; all cultures
recognize that mother-love is far from rational.  Instead, an
instinctive attachment-bond is formed, which then protects itself from
change.  The final reason to keep nurturing that child is simply,
["Because I love it."]

The problem is still a real one, and there are frequent, secret,
tragedies in which a mother's frustration and strain overwhelms those
attachment bonds and all the other personal pleasures and social
compulsions that come with rearing a child.  But rather than stray off
to talk about those other matters; let's focus on the nature of the
mother-child bond itself. I'll argue that it's based upon a special
kind of memory.

We often think of all our memories as much the same in character, and
all stored in the same huge container.  But certain kinds of memories
[ought] to be less changeable than other kinds.  For example, because
human infants are so utterly dependent on their parent's sustenance,
our species had to evolve attachment-bonds which last at least for
several years. This is seen in many other animals as well, in the form
of what psychologists call "imprinting" -- the kind of learning in
which an infant animal learns to recognize its parent.  These special
memories are very swiftly formed -- and then they're very slow to
change. It can be very difficult to get those babies to transfer their
attachment to foster-parents.  On the other side, there are similarly
rigid constraints of parents' attachment to their babies.  Many adult
mammals will eject alien babies from their nests, if they have not
been involved in the normal process of attachment shortly after birth.
The parent-child bondage, too, forms rapidly and decays slowly.

These are not our only long-persisting person-bonds.  There are many
animal species in which an individual will choose a mate and then
remain with it for all the rest of life.  Many people do that, too.
And of the ones who don't do that, something rather similar instead:
they keep on changing person-mates but choose from those of similar
appearance or character -- as though they cannot change some
underlying stereotype.  And on a shorter scale of time, many persons
find themselves enslaved by unwanted infatuations and one-way bonds
that can't be made to go away -- because the parts of the mind which
do not desire those attachments are unable to control the parts of
minds which made them.  It's little use to complain about this; the
slowness of those memory-systems evolved to suit our ancestors'
requirements, not our own.

We all know, too, the seemingly inexorable time-span of mourning.  It
often takes a year or more to manage and accept the separation or loss
of those we love.  This, too, could be a product of the slowness of
attachment-change.  Perhaps this, too, explains the prolonged,
mourning-like depression that follows sexual or other forms of
personal assault.  No matter that the unwelcome intimacy of violence
may be brief; it nonetheless affects one's attachment machinery,
however much against one's wish.  And then, because those agencies are
do inherently slow, recovery involves a profound and prolonged
disturbance to ordinary social relations.  And since that happens
inside agencies we can't control, it does not help very much for the
victim to view the incident "rationally" -- since that can only slowly
bring those sluggish mechanisms back to their normal states.  It is
the worst of injuries, to lose the use of precious sections of one's
mind.

------- Then a chapter on Freud's theory of jokes and censors concludes:

Why does humor seems so humorous when it is actually concerned with
unpleasant, painful, and disgusting subjects? There's nothing very
"funny" at all about most jokes - except, perhaps, in the skill and
subtlety with which their dreadful content is disguised; the joke
itself is often little more than ["look at what happened to somebody
else; now, aren't you glad that that wasn't you"?]  The censor theory
not only explains this, but also why jokes are usually not so funny
when heard again.  That is because, each time, those censors learn a
little more, and become harder to fool.

Then why do certain kinds of jokes, particularly those about
forbidden sexual subjects, seem to remain persistently funny to so
many people? Our theory suggests that the censors in that area area
must be peculiarly inept at continuous learning: the peculiar
robustness of sexual humor means that the censors of sexuality are
among the "slow learners" of the mind, like retarded children. In
fact, we could argue that they literally [are] retarded children --
that is, frozen remnants of our earlier selves.  But why should these
particular censors stay unchanged so long? We saw, in [S257B] one
reason why it could be good to stop some agency from learning more,
and we'll see more such arguments in [S295].  There are good reasons
why our sexual censors should be slow to change their ways.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************