mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/03/86)
>> ...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 Chris then cited that things are getting better, to which I agree, and that that women throughout history (anyone's version) have achieved positions of importance, and more frequently, independence, to which I also agree. Her basic point, and I hope to not misrepresent it, is stated here: >By depicting all women as wholly enslaved to male expectations, >you belittle their achievement. >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. > -Christine N Chism First, I suppose I should apologize if I appeared to give the first impression cited above. It was not my intent to belittle the achievements of women either currently or those of the past. My intent was to describe the progress of those achievements as I see it. My view of that progress is that much has been done, but much also remains to be done. Also, let me say that I stick to my statements for the time being. The past is indeed full of examples of women who overcame societal expectations to become notable in any field one can name. And yes, the worst of the coercive powers faced by women have indeed been removed. Joan of Arc, who provides a good example of this, was murdered for her defiance of societal roles of the time, as well as for her success against the English. But the times being better now than they were before does not mean they are good enough. It just means that other times were worse. The women of the past who dared to do what they wanted did not simply separate themselves from societal expectations; if they had, we would not remember them. They defied those expectations, and became famous in spite of them and because of them. Today, the pressures are more subtle, but no less real. Women are not burned at the stake any more, but punishments do exist. For women of this time, the freedom is a matter of latitude. There are more socially accepted choices, but women cannot afford to be content with them. 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. 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 why 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. 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 continuously prove onesself 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. Domination cannot exist in the absense of threat, and this threat is not empty. For women who wish to live their own lives, there is some freedom, but not enough. Not yet. (This is an expression of my views on the subject, and should not be construed as an attack on the beliefs of others. I am explaining my position, not attacking the positions of others. If you don't agree, then don't agree.) --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.