beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (02/24/86)
[G'head, eat me, I *love* it!] In article <672@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >In article <1651@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UUCP (JB) writes: > >>>... What percentage of men on the beach would have >>>the decency to respond appropriately to the woman's request? Are you >>>implying SOME men act this way or MOST men act this way? >> >>If only one percent of men act this way, that means EVERY time a woman >>goes to a beach where there are more than 100 men, she can expect to >>be bothered. Now you tell me: what percentage of the men on the beach >>do you think were repeatedly interrupted by people who refused to >>accept that their intrusion was unwelcome? > >If you go back and read my original posting and the posting it >responded to, you'll find that I was acting in the belief that the >original posting claimed that ALL men acted such and such a way. My >posting was a reaction to what I perceived as an obnoxious attempt to >stereotype men by the actions of a subset of men I realize that. My posting was intended to clear up that mispercep- tion. To the best of my recollection, the original posting did *not* claim "that ALL men acted such and such a way". It merely pointed out an annoyance that far more women than men have to face. (If my recollection is wrong, I apologize.) >([...]; now you tell ME why it's OK for feminists to stereotype >men but not OK for whites to stereotype blacks or males to stereotype >females...). It's not. >Oh, and by the way, I've been 'repeatedly interrupted' by people who >couldn't take NO for an answer many times in my life. And yes, in some >cases the interruption obviously had a sexual intent (and the >interrupter was female). Then you know how truly annoying it is. >I'm not saying women don't suffer this kind >of harassment to a greater degree than men, just that all this talk >about those nasty men being this way and those bitchy women being that >way GETS US NOWHERE. That's true. However, talking about "those nasty men being this way and those bitchy women being that way" is not our only option. We could talk about what sets of problems/annoyances impede women and men. Then we could talk about how the sets differ, in an effort to determine which problems are simply a consequence of living with folks and which problems are a consequence of gender-related stereo- typing. Once we have a clearer idea of what type of problem we're dealing with, we can further investigate its cause in the hopes of indentifying a remedy or, better yet, a prevention. [Of course, every now and then, we'll need to simply bitch about something for no reason other than to clear out our angers so we can think more rationally. That's ok too.] >>The point is that it's an >>annoyance that *many* women have to deal with *because* they're women. >>(Although I hear rumors that it happens on male homosexual beaches as >>well. Apparently a much higher percentage of men behave like this >>than women; and again, if only one percent of men act this way, ....) > >A few questions: > >So what are you suggesting? I wasn't suggesting anything. As I said, I was merely trying to clear up what I thought was a misperception on your part. >Are men incapable of change? How do you propose getting to the one percent? No, of course men are not incapable of change. However, I think that the type of behavior we're discussing here (intruding on someone else's space in the hopes of making sexual contact, and refusing to leave when it's made clear that such intrusion is not welcome) is, almost by defi- nition, carried out by rather insensitive people (insensitive to others' feelings, although not necessarily insensitive to pain themselves). And such insensitive folks are not likely to recognize the need to change; hence they'd be unlikely to make the rather substantial commitment necessary. >Do you seriously think anything will ever change 100% of the people? Not a chance. Nor do I think anything should. I don't much like 100% of the people being like anything. Don't get me wrong: I do think 100% of the people should be unwilling to commit war and other crimes, and I do think 100% of the people should show more respect for each other and the earth. But as far as assholes go...well, assholes have their (our? :-) place too. I mean, Anita Bryant did more for the gay movement than Gertrude Stein. And Phyllis Schlafly did more for feminism than Amelia Earheart. Please note that by saying I think we need assholes, I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't oppose their attitudes. Quite the contrary, I think the value of assholes is that they present their attitudes in such a clear-cut way that we're forced to see the ludicrousness therein, and that we're subsequently more aware of the same stupid attitudes in others and ourselves. Then we're in a better position to change those attitudes. Now, you might say "Yes, but if there were truly no stupid attitudes in the first place, then we wouldn't need assholes." Well, yes, but one person's "stupid attitude" is another's just cause. <n> years ago feminism was a "stupid attitude". Even today, many people think gay pride is a "stupid attitude". Look at the disagreement right here about beach behavior. No, I don't much like 100% of the people being like anything. >If a one percent _sshole-factor isn't acceptable, what percentage is? One percent's probably about right. That way we all get exposed to some assholes, but they're not overwhelming. >What penalty do you think can >and should be imposed on males exhibiting this kind of behavior? I think they should be forced to live their lives without the company of sensitive women. Women of quality should recognize their egocentric attitude, point it out to them as clearly (bluntly) as possible, and refuse to have anything more to do with them. >How can society as a whole work toward a reduction of obnoxious beach >behavior? How can females work toward a reduction? How can males (and >'by dying' is NOT an acceptable answer :-)? "By dying"'s out, eh? Um, well, how 'bout "by volunteering for moon missions"? :-) No, but seriously now: Well, I just suggested one thing females in particular could do for the short term. I think society's (i.e., females and males) role is in a longer term solution. For the current generation, I think we can strive to make such behavior socially unacceptable. I think we can come down hard on people who exhibit such obstinate behavior. If we're a target of such jerk, tell him/her what a jerk s/he's being. If one of our beach buddies is being said jerk, don't say "Hey, that's some fox. Nice try, buddy!"; rather, say "Hey, you asshole. Can't you see that person doesn't want to be disturbed? Lay off!". If we see such behavior on TV or in a movie, comment (at some appropriate time, mabye during a commercial) about how obnoxious the person was being. For future generations, well, I think a lot of problems, including this one, would go away if we could just teach our kids to have a little more respect. People would be less needful of others' attention if they had more respect for themselves. They'd be less demanding of that attention if they had more respect for others. And we'd be less near fatally poisoning ourselves if we had more respect for the earth. I think respect's the way to go. More than enough for now, I suspect. -- --JB ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) Sylvia says `A real lady never asks: "Was *what* good for me?". ("I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention.")'
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/27/86)
In article <1722@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes: >>... My >>posting was a reaction to what I perceived as an obnoxious attempt to >>stereotype men by the actions of a subset of men > >I realize that. My posting was intended to clear up that mispercep- >tion. To the best of my recollection, the original posting did *not* >claim "that ALL men acted such and such a way". It merely pointed >out an annoyance that far more women than men have to face. ... Well, OK, maybe I was wrong. I no longer have the original posting around, so let's say it's possible that the attitudes I thought I saw in the original posting weren't in fact there... >>([...]; now you tell ME why it's OK for feminists to stereotype ... > >It's not. > >>Oh, and by the way, I've been 'repeatedly interrupted' by people ... > >Then you know how truly annoying it is. > >>... just that all this talk >>about those nasty men being this way and those bitchy women being that >>way GETS US NOWHERE. > >That's true. However, talking about "those nasty men being this way >and those bitchy women being that way" is not our only option. Agreed on all of this. But my perception is that a lot of the discussion on this and related issues HAS been full of sweeping generalizations and unfair stereotypes. On both sides. >We >could talk about what sets of problems/annoyances impede women and >men. Then we could talk about how the sets differ, in an effort to >determine which problems are simply a consequence of living with >folks and which problems are a consequence of gender-related stereo- >typing. Once we have a clearer idea of what type of problem we're >dealing with, we can further investigate its cause in the hopes of >indentifying a remedy or, better yet, a prevention. ... The problem I had with the original posting is a problem I have with many postings to the net: they complain about a situation, then offer no suggestions as to cause or remedy. The net effect (;-) is to suggest to the reader that group X behaves in such and such a fashion because "they're that way, you know." The implied solution is that group Y must isolate itself from group X or otherwise reduce its negative influence. There was no suggestion (to me) in the original posting that the negative beach behavior of some men didn't reflect negatively on all men, or that men in general were in some sense improvable. The general impression I got was that the original poster was disgusted with behavior she saw as being "typically" male, and was ready to set up all-female beaches as a solution. This is an exaggeration, I know, but captures the flavor of my reaction to the original posting. And I'm still not convinced my reaction to her (not to you) was a misconception.. >space in the hopes of making sexual contact, and refusing to leave when >it's made clear that such intrusion is not welcome) is, almost by defi- >nition, carried out by rather insensitive people (insensitive to others' >feelings, although not necessarily insensitive to pain themselves). And >such insensitive folks are not likely to recognize the need to change; >hence they'd be unlikely to make the rather substantial commitment >necessary. Negative feedback affects even insensitive people, I think, if it comes often enough and closely enough to the behavior that stimulates it. >the earth. But as far as assholes go...well, assholes have their (our? >:-) place too. I mean, Anita Bryant did more for the gay movement than >Gertrude Stein. And Phyllis Schlafly did more for feminism than Amelia >Earheart. True enough. >If one of our beach buddies is being said jerk, don't say "Hey, that's >some fox. Nice try, buddy!"; rather, say "Hey, you asshole. Can't >you see that person doesn't want to be disturbed? Lay off!". If we >see such behavior on TV or in a movie, comment (at some appropriate >time, mabye during a commercial) about how obnoxious the person was >being. Unfortunately, some of these guys are such dim bulbs that even obvious and frequent disapproval doesn't work. And they're likely to be hanging out with OTHER dim bulbs who simply reinforce their behavior and think that males who behave differently are less than fully male ... but I do think more and more people are becoming conscious of this as a problem, and the frequency of this kind of obnoxious behavior in the male population is becoming lower. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly