chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) (01/31/86)
In Amalgam(Long) Eric McColm writes:
On Ellen's comment (I think) that she was unwilling to
give 50% to get 50% in her life, because of past
discrimination, and the related argument that to be free
of stereotypes one must live apart from them, not just
against them: Ideally, you should be able to live any way
you want. Unfortunately, the pressure to live within the
stereotypes still exists, which makes it difficult to live
apart from the oppression that one still feels, and and to
which others still succumb. Once the pressure ceases, women
can live their lives any way they want, apart from the
stereotypical role models. Until then, women are forced
to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance
of them. Greater freedom does not yet exist.
Forgive me for pitching into you like this but who are you to limit
my alternatives? You are dangerously oversimplifying
matters here. Difficult does not mean impossible. At the
moment, societal expectations do not control womens' lives and
thoughts, world without end, amen amen. What is the good of waiting
until some mythical future when pressure ceases? I am living
now; I must work with what I am given. And happily the
situation is not as grim as you paint it. Women's lot has
improved amazingly since the fourteenth century when she was
married off by her parents, forbidden by law to own land or inherit
money, or even to travel freely. Even then an alternative existed.
She could join a monastery, a confining alternative and perhaps
a flight into another stereotype, but at least she could choose
it. This is better than fuming against men for the rest of her
life, or submitting to their control without argument. It was a
life apart, not wholly in reaction against or in submission to
the male hierarchies of the time. And there are women, who even
then, managed to form positive goals for themselves, despite
bitterness, who created their own roles: Margery Kempe, St.
Claire, etc. Without these alternatives, unsatisfactory though
they be, women as a group would probably have suicided in
prehistory.
Many women have lived since that time, creating thousands of
role models as challenging as the unspecified stereotypes you
discuss are confining. By depicting all women as wholly
enslaved to male expectations, you belittle their achievement.
Women, can, have, and do contrive positive goals of their own,
although they undoubtedly must struggle against prejudice as
they work towards them. Some become bitter, but at least in
literature, resentment against suppression flaws their work
rather than inspires it. Emily Bronte reads better (to me) than
George Eliot for this reason. Eliot's resentment detracts from
her satirical and humorous observations. It touches her too
closely. Reading misogynists affects me the same way.
But if you tell me that Emily Bronte lived a life
entirely circumscribed by male expectations, you must be reading
a very different Emily Bronte than I am. Or if you haven't,
give me an example and I will argue with you. But please don't
overgeneralize without example.
I believe that women are essentially human beings. Dorothy Sayers
has written a lovely essay called "Are Women Human?" After
considering the almost uniform suppression of women through
history, she concludes that they are not, since they are not
treated as such. I disagree. I do not wish to trivialize sexual
differences (isn't that what this newsgroup is about :-) but
women do not come from another planet. Women and men belong to
the same species. They might even have similar thoughts. More
specifically, neither sex can completely control the other
because of one of my favorite imponderables, free will.
I believe in it, therefore I have it. You (and I address
society as well) can influence me, persuade me and physically
force me, but you cannot limit my inherent freedom and dictate
my thoughts and objectives unless I let you.
And I won't. Hopefully you do not want to.
And I do not want to control you either, thank you very
much. I have no wish to be the slave even of myself, let alone
your "master"!
Therefore, I assert that greater freedom than you depict,
(though in no wise sufficient) does exist. A woman (or man) can choose
her own role model, male or female, and live as she wishes. She
will regrettably do this at some cost of security and usually
with pain. But countless women have, as have countless men.
Self expression is always a dangerous enterprise; it involves
opening yourself to others' criticism and when they dehumanize
and manipulate you it hurts. Sometimes it even kills, as
various martyrs, male and female, have discovered. However, the
alternatives that you state are the only ones seem much worse.
Human beings have the right and abilities to choose their
vocations and role models; both endure suppression as a forfeit
for living in society, though the women have been and are being
more systematically and thoroughly suppressed than the men.
This is terrible, but if you accept it as inevitable, you close
the trap on yourself, even if you didn't set it. History shows
that both women and men can achieve great things, positively
working to their own ends, and not only by reacting negatively
against persecution.
Your statements rest on the premise that the indoctrination
of both men and women to certain roles (controller/controlled)
is complete and successful. The roles are there (but which
roles?) so powerful and pervasive that one can only accept them
or embitter ones life by struggling against them, in either case
submitting to their control.
PLEASE DO NOT LIMIT THE ALTERNATIVES!!!!
These stereotypes (little woman, macho man, gay blade, prick
tease, rabid feminist, m.c.p., what have you!) are not the only
ones. Create your own! It is possible, though difficult, to
evade societal expectations. But no one said life was easy or
fair. Even if you get hurt, it might be worth it.
from chris
The stars are clear tonight.
The night is pure and cold.
The moon is looking for her lost
inheritance everywhere.
A window, a branch in blossom
And that is enough:
No blossom without earth.
No earth without space.
No space without blossom.
Gunnar Ekelofdmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/06/86)
In article <2413@reed.UUCP> chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) writes: >In Amalgam(Long) Eric McColm writes: > > On Ellen's comment (I think) that she was unwilling to > give 50% to get 50% in her life, because of past > discrimination, and the related argument that to be free > of stereotypes one must live apart from them, not just > against them: Ideally, you should be able to live any way > you want. Unfortunately, the pressure to live within the > stereotypes still exists, which makes it difficult to live > apart from the oppression that one still feels, and and to > which others still succumb. Once the pressure ceases, women > can live their lives any way they want, apart from the > stereotypical role models. Until then, women are forced > to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance > of them. Greater freedom does not yet exist. > > Forgive me for pitching into you like this but who are you to limit > my alternatives? ... Poor Eric. I've seen this happen to him on another occasion, where something he said in perfect innocence was misinterpreted and people leapt down his throat for it. Eric was simply describing what he thinks is the way things are. If I tell you that you can't jump off a cliff and fly by flapping your arms, am I guilty of limiting your alternatives? Is bad news the fault of the messenger? -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) (02/11/86)
In article <2070@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >> which others still succumb. Once the pressure ceases, women >> can live their lives any way they want, apart from the >> stereotypical role models. Until then, women are forced >> to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance >> of them. Greater freedom does not yet exist. >> >> Forgive me for pitching into you like this but who are you to limit >> my alternatives? ... > >Poor Eric. I've seen this happen to him on another occasion, where >something he said in perfect innocence was misinterpreted and people >leapt down his throat for it. Eric was simply describing what he >thinks is the way things are. If I tell you that you can't jump off a >cliff and fly by flapping your arms, am I guilty of limiting your >alternatives? Is bad news the fault of the messenger? I am sorry if I appeared to dive precipitously down Eric's throat. I did not intend offense, only discussion. I think, however, that it is dangerous to accept without examination his portrayal of the situation. Necessary imprisonment within stereotypes is not a physical law like gravity. Your analogy deceives in that regard. And, thank fortune, bad news is not necessarily true news. I am not claiming to be a "messenger" of either bad or good "news" (i.e. fact, truth, or laws of the universe.) I do not know if Eric is either. Perhaps if your view of the universe does not allow for my freedom to escape stereotypes created by some vague overarching entity called society, at least in your own mind you limit my alternatives. I took my dive to demonstrate that, at least in my opinion, Eric's rules do not entirely apply. Perhaps I misinterpreted; that is my unfortunate tendency sometimes. But his words seem fairly straightforward, as do yours. Good hunting, from chris
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/21/86)
In article <2486@reed.UUCP> chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) writes: >In article <2070@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >>> which others still succumb. Once the pressure ceases, women >>> can live their lives any way they want, apart from the >>> stereotypical role models. Until then, women are forced >>> to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance >>> of them. Greater freedom does not yet exist. >>> >>> Forgive me for pitching into you like this but who are you to limit >>> my alternatives? ... >> >> Eric was simply describing what he >>thinks is the way things are. If I tell you that you can't jump off a >>cliff and fly by flapping your arms, am I guilty of limiting your >>alternatives? > >I am sorry if I appeared to dive precipitously down Eric's >throat. I did not intend offense, only discussion. >I think, however, that it is dangerous to accept without >examination his portrayal of the situation. What I was reacting to was the disapproving tone of the question "who are you to limit my alternatives?" Eric made a statement about what he believed is the state of the world, and the first sentence of your response was heavily loaded with moral disapproval. Then you went on to examine the accuracy of his beliefs. It was mainly the disapproval I was reacting to. If you had skipped the moral disapproval and went directly to examining the accuracy of his beliefs I wouldn't have responded. The moral disapproval is a form of what I call the "amoral scumbag" argument. Its most blatant form is "only an amoral scumbag would believe that!" Typically, the victim apologizes profusely and revises his/her beliefs, even if, as often happens, no evidence has been presented on the basis of which to change those beliefs. Most people would rather change their opinions than be thought ill of. I'm not singling you out, everybody does this, and everybody is vulnerable to this type of argument. But most feminists use it a lot, by calling anybody whose belief offends them a "sexist", or an MCP, or accusing them of "blaming the victim". I made a statement in another article that I wanted to offend and insult feminists. Their (at least those who make the most noise) heavy dependence on this form of argument is a major reason why I wanted to do so. (I'm not going to engage in a program of annoying and offending feminists after all, because I think if I have a point to make being deliberately offensive won't help me to make it. Also, being artistically and skillfully offensive is too time-consuming. Bird Dog's form of offensiveness is simply too easy -- you don't score any points for it.) -- David Canzi "I wept because I had no woman, until I met a man who had no hands."