chism@reed.UUCP (Christine N Chism) (02/05/86)
Oh mighty and nonexistent line-eater!!! >> ...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 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. >> -Eric McColm Thank you, honorable opponent, for replying to my article. I think we agree basically except for one point. I have already said that much needs to be done; please excuse me for quoting myself: "I assert that greater freedom than you depict (THOUGH IN NO WISE SUFFICIENT) does exist." That, if anything was the main point of my article. I still disagree with the original assertions that you re-cite here and stick to. My list of past examples was to illustrate my point that women are NOT "forced to live either within these confined roles, or in defiance of them." This, as you may have gathered, really bugs me. I certainly do not deny that "today the pressures are more subtle, but no less real"! However, I do insist that one can overcome them to some extent. You say: "The new freedom for women is just a new stereotype: the professional woman, the so-called "Superwoman. But this is just another role to which women are being forced to conform. Not as terrible as the previous ones, but another stereotype all the same." I, as a human being and a woman, do not notice an international coercion to make me a superwoman. I see society offering me a multitude of choices, far more than these "stereotypes" you keep talking about. For example, I do not want to be rich, or successful in business; to that extent I escape one dictate of a money based society, as you call it. At present, I want to write a good book. This, you may say, is also a stereotype: the penniless woman author, oh we know them well. I do not care. If it is a stereotype, I am choosing it, not being forced into it. I see many alternatives open to modern women, although pressure to conform certainly pervades society. It is not, however, irresistable. You seem to see only two, fight it or surrender. Perhaps you could tell me which stereotypes you see women forced into. I know women who choose to remain housewives, I also know a female doctor with nine children. I have even heard of those who write for a living. In what sense are these livelihoods purely and simply stereotypes? Furthermore, do you know anyone of either sex who IS purely and simply what she or he DOES? People, are not, have never been and cannot be forced to be simple stereotypes. I don't think you can prepackage a life, or "force" anyone to think a certain way unless that person agrees to it. I am sorry to repeat myself like this. You make a very good point with your next statement: There remains, however, one punishment for women (and any others) who live outside the established roles of society: poverty. I have several friends who are trying to define their own roles and lifestyles, some of whom are out-and-out radical feminists. They are all poor. This is one reason I can't accept the argument that women can live apart from any roles, defining their own lives, and simply not deigning to recognize the oppression on them. Women have to eat, too. And in this money-based society, the freedom to defy social roles usually carries a price. Again I agree with you except for one point. No one, women or otherwise can live apart from any roles; we must all function in society. Even when a person is alone she or he carries some manner of society with them. Moreover, women SHOULD recognize the oppression; they should resist it because it is fatal. They should, however, not allow themselves to become consumed with bitterness at the injustice done to them, hating their oppressors. Continual resentment and hatred are also fatal. I will risk being referred to net.religion by quoting the Tao here: "force is followed by loss of strength." Hatred similarly weakens the hater. This is the weak point in my argument; it is very difficult to avoid bitterness and resentment of oppression, to fight against it as a cruel wrong without allowing ones feelings to become so involved that when one loses, one loses for good. This is the dilemma you state women are irretrievably caught in, that they must either accept society's roles, or fight against them. Either choice is a capitulation to those roles, and women can form no positive alternatives for themselves. However, it is possible to do so; women in the past have done it, and I see women doing it all around me. Yes, unfortunately they must pay the price. But though society may condemn them, they may continue to live as as they wish. That human freedom is worth any price. This situation resembles that of the oppressed anywhere. And to that end, I would cite the solution of Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated peaceful resistance. Complaisance ignores; force and hatred only exacerbate the problem. There is, however, a third (and fourth and fifth for all I know) alternative. The strength that comes from conviction is very difficult to ignore or erode as the civil rights movement shows. Steady resistance that stubbornly maintains a person's inherent freedom despite oppression, will eventually wear away the oppressors. Meanwhile, we endure punishments; Society doesn't like obdurate, unrelenting resistance after all. I still assert that society does not wholly control a woman's role, life, or thought. There is not enough freedom, but I think there is more than you say. One last thing. You state: One cannot live apart from society and still enjoy it's benefits. And to live in society, one must either be accepted by society, or relegated to one of those special hells for people whom society rejects. Poverty is one. To avoid these punishments, one must continually prove oneself to the nearer elements of society (bosses etc.), or find a pocket in which the rules are not applied (FWHC is a notable example) or content onesself with life under the consequences, or leave society altogether. I do not think you can live apart from society. Ever. Even when alone. I live in society. I am not a stereotype; I am a free woman :-) I do not bow to my boss, and I do not live in an ivory tower. I do not even believe in ivory towers. The rules, as you call them, always apply. But you do not have to accept them. To a certain extent, you live by your own rules. Again, thank you for replying. As it is perfectly obvious that these are only my opinions, I welcome discussion. from chris Seventy-eight Under heaven nothing is more soft and yielding than water. Yet for attacking the solid and strong, nothing is better; It has no equal. The weak can overcome the strong; The supple can overcome the stiff. Under heaven everyone knows this, Yet no one puts it into practice: ...The truth often sounds paradoxical.