dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/10/86)
Well, I've just spent my spare time from the last couple of days reading
through ~300 notes, and my initial reaction is: All those notes, and so few
subjects. But, as in any kind of conversation, the main subject matter only
serves as a stepping stone, and many things actually end up being discussed,
so all in all it has been "interesting". I was a bit surprised, though
by the signal-to-noise ratio. I guess I was expecting things to be
a bit more rational over here, but then I guess I also wasn't expecting
heated debate -- I suppose I thought it would be more `issue' oriented, or
something. Anyway, a few thoughts on specific topics:
1. RE: "The `moon' Joke". I laughed at this .signature the first time I saw
it -- for several reasons. One is that I liked the way it played on the
now-cliched use of sending-a-man-to-the-moon as a benchmark of possible
human (in this case, read "male") accomplishments. I also liked it because
there *are* days when it seems like the world would be a much nicer place
without the frustrations of have trying to deal with the sometimes
seemingly alien other half of our species. (Remember the old "Women --
can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em"? Well, we feel just as
frustrated from time to time.) The thing I found most interesting about it,
however, was that it reminded me of a song we used to sing during "music
hour" in elementary school called "Reuben, Reuben". This was a
girls'-part/boys'-part song. It was a "traditional" folk song (let's hope
the tradition has died out). The first verse for the girls went like this:
"Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
what a grand world this would be
if the men were all transported
far beyond the Northern Sea."
Sorry, I don't remember the rest, or the boys' response (maybe there's a
folk-music musicologist out there?), but I seem to remember it being the
notion that if they (the men) were (all transported), what good swimmers
women would be. Real pleasant little diddy, yes? We sang this song
happily week after week. With that kind of indoctrination, is it any
wonder that we sometimes fall back onto the notion of "Wouldn't the world
be a nicer place if it was just filled with reasonable, loving women
instead of those nasty, irrational, men?" Certainly, I don't feel this way
all the time, nor do I think of it as a real possible solution to anything
(although it might be an interesting experiment :-)), but there *are* those
days when all attempts at communication fail, or when the possibility of
*ever* being able to understand the male mind seems nonexistent, or when it
seems that all the horrible, hateful, violent things being perpetrated on
this world are being done by men -- yes, there are days when I can feel
myself starting to hum, "...far beyond the Northern Sea."
(P.S. The fact that women *could* live without men [and still perpetuate
the species] may account for some of the over-reaction at a subconcious
level -- ever see someone who was worried about job security...they get
*real* touchy. :-))
2. RE: "The `beach' incident". The thing I find interesting about
"discussions" like this one is that so often the facts get obscurred by the
rhetoric. Since the original posting had already dived off the end, I was
only able to piece together what I could from the voluminous responses, so
these may or may not be accurate. Fact: A woman went to the beach to relax
and do some reading and work on her tan. Fact: While she was there she was
approached by three men. Fact: When she told the men that she wasn't
interested in doing anything but what she had originally gone to the beach
for (i.e., she told them to go away), only one of them had the decency to
believe that she *meant* what she said. There was one other fact that has
been presented but, frankly, I don't consider it to be all that vital to
the situation: the woman had undone the straps of her top in order to avoid
tan lines. Face it, this woman could have been wrapped up in burlap bags
and *the same thing* could have happened. A woman out alone is considered
"fair game" by an awful lot of men in our society. I am not necessarily
adverse to someone wanting to say hello to me and possibly strike up a
conversation, but there *has* to be the understanding that "no" *means*
"no". (How much longer will the "Your lips say `no', but your eyes say
`yes, yes, yes'" crap be perpetuated? How many people even noticed this
insidious line [and the ensuing confirmation by the female character] in
what was voted the "Best Picture" in (?)1978 [The_Goodbye_Girl]? How are we
ever going to convince people that we *mean* what we say, not what they
want to hear, when the exact opposite is portrayed in the mass media on a
near-continual basis?) For me, *this* was the issue that should have been
discussed. Spending a lot of time discussing percentage-of-flesh-covered
versus implied-invitation is pointless -- the only question at hand is:
How would you feel if everytime you told someone "No, thanks" they said to
themselves "Great, then it's `yes'"? Fffrrruuussstttrrraaattteeeddd???
Woman: "Honey, would you like some fish tonight?"
Man: "No, thanks."
Woman: "Great, let's have snapper."
Wouldn't be too much fun, would it guys? Now, don't get all riled up and
start shooting out postings saying "*I* don't do that. I accept a `no' as a
`no'." I realize that the number of enlightened men is increasing with
time, and that there are a lot of them on the net reading net.women. But if
you're going to discuss an issue like this, you first have to understand
what the issue is. My guess is that I am not atypical, and that if this
scenario was told to x number of women, the majority of them would tell
you, "Well, the real issue is that she told them `no', and they still kept
pestering her." I think the percentage that would get off into a discussion
of appropriate attire or aggressive-passive behaviour would be very low.
The fact that something as (seemingly) simple as deciding what the issue of
a discussion is points to a fundamental problem that men and women are
going to have to overcome if they're ever going to hope to really
communicate with one another. It seems that we see things so differently
(and that's usually okay -- it's interesting to have that other
perspective, to shed new light on something), but we're going to have to
try to synch ourselves up a little bit more, or else I can't imagine how
that gap will ever be closed.
Diane Holt
INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
(east coast:) ihnp4!ima!ism780!dianeh
(west coast:) decvax!vortex!ism780!dianeh
"Why is the alphabet in that order?...Is it because of that song?"
--Steven Wrightdianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (02/11/86)
Well, it was not only my first encounter with net.women, it was also my first
attempt at posting a new article using 'rn' (I'm used to using 'notes', where
things are *much* more straightforward). Anyway, I looked through the info
you get when you hit 'h' and couldn't find *anything* that said "This
command posts a new article", so I went with what looked like the next best
thing -- 'f'. Naturally, I got a bunch of header information, which I
proceeded to edit, but, well, you see, I sorta overlooked the Newsgroups:
field, and, well, you know, it sorta got posted to net.singles, too. I know
"sorry" don't feed the bulldog, but I am anyway. Please, if you're going
to respond to this, edit the Newsgroup: field first. I'm not doing it this
time because I really *want* this to go to both places.
Chagrined,
Diane Holt
INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
(east coast:) ihnp4!ima!ism780!dianeh
(west coast:) decvax!vortex!ism780!dianeh
"nnn...Scared -- can't talk..."
--Leo Bloomjohn@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (02/11/86)
In article <540@ism780c.UUCP> dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: > >(P.S. The fact that women *could* live without men [and still perpetuate >the species] may account for some of the over-reaction at a subconcious >level -- ever see someone who was worried about job security...they get >*real* touchy. :-)) Say what?!?!? Human females are parthnogenic? -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/11/86)
In article <540@ism780c.UUCP> dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes: >... "Wouldn't the world >be a nicer place if it was just filled with reasonable, loving women >instead of those nasty, irrational, men?" ... >there *are* those >days when all attempts at communication fail, or when the possibility of >*ever* being able to understand the male mind seems nonexistent, or when it >seems that all the horrible, hateful, violent things being perpetrated on >this world are being done by men ... Yes, we have models of women in positions of national leadership and influence demonstrating the inherent reasonable and loving nature of women: leaders like Maggie "Iron Lady" Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Imelda Marcos, Marie Antoinette, Catherine the Great, Evita Peron, Mao's wife (can't remember her name but I think there's a Z in it), Cleopatra ... Don't kid yourself. Given the chance, women can be just as nasty and irrational as men. >... Fact: A woman went to the beach to relax >and do some reading and work on her tan. Fact: While she was there she was >approached by three men. Fact: When she told the men that she wasn't >interested in doing anything but what she had originally gone to the beach >for (i.e., she told them to go away), only one of them had the decency to >believe that she *meant* what she said. Fine, there's a certain percentage of men who are inconsiderate, insensitive boors. So what? What percentage of the men on the beach approached this woman? 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? I've also had on occasion interactions with women who wouldn't take "no" for an answer (one, a married woman, still sends me letters, calls me on the phone, hangs around places I like to hang around and then tries to put the make on me ...). Men don't have a corner on insensitivity or obsessive behavior, my friend. Many women have had bad experiences with men and have bad models in general for male behavior. In my experience there are a LOT of sensitive and decent men out there who would never dream of pushing another human being in the fashion you describe. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (02/15/86)
["Love is a nose, so ya better not pick it." ...or something like that] In article <659@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >Fine, there's a certain percentage of men who are inconsiderate, >insensitive boors. So what? What percentage of the men on the beach >approached this woman? 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? 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, ....) -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "I once heard the remainder of a colony of ants, which had been partially obliterated by a cow's foot, seriously discussing the intentions of the gods towards their civilization." -- Archy the Cockroach
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (02/16/86)
> Well, I've just spent my spare time from the last couple of days reading > through ~300 notes, and my initial reaction is: All those notes, and so few > subjects. AMEN! I'm in the same process, and I find the content thus far quite low. > 2. RE: "The `beach' incident". > Fact: When she told the men that she wasn't > interested in doing anything but what she had originally gone to the beach > for (i.e., she told them to go away), only one of them had the decency to > believe that she *meant* what she said. > ... > How are we > ever going to convince people that we *mean* what we say, not what they > want to hear, when the exact opposite is portrayed in the mass media on a > near-continual basis?) For me, *this* was the issue that should have been > discussed. > ... > My guess is that I am not atypical, and that if this > scenario was told to x number of women, the majority of them would tell > you, "Well, the real issue is that she told them `no', and they still kept > pestering her." > ... > The fact that something as (seemingly) simple as deciding what the issue of > a discussion is points to a fundamental problem that men and women are > going to have to overcome if they're ever going to hope to really > communicate with one another. It seems that we see things so differently > (and that's usually okay -- it's interesting to have that other > perspective, to shed new light on something), but we're going to have to > try to synch ourselves up a little bit more, or else I can't imagine how > that gap will ever be closed. > > Diane Holt Hold it right there, Diane! Not all women have recovered from their childhood indoctrination which usually includes statements like, "When initiating a relationship with a man, play `hard to get' (and other head games)." Gentlemen interested in female companionship (more or less) are required to guess as to what sort of lady they're addressing BEFORE they have any indication. My experience has shown me that there are 4 possible combinations (and please don't flame me for the labels): male, enlightened; male, unenlightened; female, "traditional"; and female, "non-traditional". Up until very recently, the "traditional" female dominated in number, so the strategy of choice for the males who were really interested in a particular female was to assume that a verbal "no" was just so many words, no matter how strongly phrased. We males are starting to realize that the majority is shifting, so our behaviour is only starting to change. Yes, there is a communications gap, and it isn't the fault of males, and it isn't the fault of females -- it is the fault of changing attitudes of BOTH sexes, a change that will take time to affect the vast majority of us all, but one which has already affected a great number of us. So, those women that I've classified as "non-traditional" above, please understand that males (in general) are changing, and many have not yet "seen the light". And, those males that I've classified above as unenlightened, please understand that females come in 2 varieties (insofar as this discussion goes), and you run the risk of annoying "non-traditional" women if you treat them as "traditional", and you run the risk of losing the remaining "traditional" women if you treat them as "non-traditional." The bottom line all around is, "You pays yer money and you takes yer chances." And, when has it not been thus? Opposing views? Assenting views? Please post 'em! -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (02/18/86)
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've recently made a posting to net.singles that contained a sentence whose content was interpreted as racist by a fellow poster, and I was rightly notified of this fact; 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...). 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). 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. >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? Are men incapable of change? How do you propose getting to the one percent? Do you seriously think anything will ever change 100% of the people? If a one percent _sshole-factor isn't acceptable, what percentage is? What penalty do you think can and should be imposed on males exhibiting this kind of behavior? 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 :-)? -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/22/86)
<This posting should not be construed as the Word of the Goddess>
Cueing off of Diane's posting (a long time ago), I did a quick soul-search
on why the topic of the beach-harassment discussion changed from the original
one to a shouting match about the implications of womens' clothing. I'm
now convinced that there was no change. The misconceptions started from the
first reading.
There were several topics under discussion, and I note these as the most
revealing:
1) A woman at the beach is (I think) harassed. Some questions were posed.
2) A woman who says "no" is seldom believed. This is a problem.
3) A woman at the beach acts outside societal norms. What does she mean?
I discovered that (2) was initiated by women, and (3) by men. What does this
mean? Simply that people, in reading a situation, automatically cast
themselves in the situation without changing their gender, adopting the
persona of the most prominent character of their own sex.
This presents serious problems if the story is told from the other gender.
As people cast themselves into the story without considering gender
difficulties, they are presented with an identical situation as it would
have had they actually been involved, not with a similar situation that
has been restructured to account for the differences between the story
protagonist and the reader.
Take the beach story, for example. I suspect that the people who discussed
subjects 1 & 2 above did so because they placed themselves in the female
persona, while those who discussed 3 above placed themselves in the persona
of a man at the beach (as in one of the men who approached her). The
breakdown of original response postings by gender and the attempts at
recasting the gender of the person in the story as male seem to support this.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Reason is Peace;
Fanaticism is Slavery;
Tolerance is Strength.arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/22/86)
In article <129@sfsup.UUCP> mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) writes: >Not all women have recovered from their >childhood indoctrination which usually includes statements like, "When >initiating a relationship with a man, play `hard to get' (and other head >games)." Gentlemen interested in female companionship (more or less) >are required to guess as to what sort of lady they're addressing BEFORE >they have any indication. The reason this argument has never impressed me very much is that I am not interested in women who want to play this kind of head game with me. I tend to like people who are reasonably honest, so it is hard for me to comprehend why I ought to pursue any person who asks me not to. Either they really *don't* want to talk to me, go out with me, or whatever, or they *do* but don't want to let me know, in which case I don't want to talk to them, go out with them, or whatever. If a person wants to play head games, s/he can find somebody else to play them with, and live a spiritually impoverished life without me :-). Ken Arnold
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (02/23/86)
> In article <129@sfsup.UUCP> mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) writes: > >Not all women have recovered from their > >childhood indoctrination which usually includes statements like, "When > >initiating a relationship with a man, play `hard to get' (and other head > >games)." Gentlemen interested in female companionship (more or less) > >are required to guess as to what sort of lady they're addressing BEFORE > >they have any indication. > > The reason this argument has never impressed me very much is that I am > not interested in women who want to play this kind of head game with > me. I tend to like people who are reasonably honest, so it is hard for > me to comprehend why I ought to pursue any person who asks me not to. > Either they really *don't* want to talk to me, go out with me, or > whatever, or they *do* but don't want to let me know, in which case I > don't want to talk to them, go out with them, or whatever. If a person > wants to play head games, s/he can find somebody else to play them > with, and live a spiritually impoverished life without me :-). > > Ken Arnold Ken, I agree wholeheartedly about women who *want* to play head games. The point I was trying to make is that there are (a few or some or many or most) women who do so without conscious(sp?) thought, and typically only during the biggest game of all, the dating game. These women are otherwise just like the rest of us *people*, but suffer from a sort of brainwashing on this particular subject. -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one. "If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel