regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (11/05/85)
Very interesting articles: re masculinity/femininity.
A couple other thoughts:
The text for one of my classes at UCLA ("Leadership, Motivation and Power")
was INVISIBLE WARS by Culbert and MacDonough. It's about the possible
problems and solutions for managers who face a differential between a
worker's self-interest and the corporation's requirements. (Both from
the Manager-down perspective and the manager-up). ANYWAY, supposedly one
of the reasons they wrote the book was to make an attempt at "humanizing"
the workplace. Now, they noted about 1/3 into the book that, since there
was little in the way of historical empirical data on WOMEN in the workplace,
most of the facts, figures, assumptions, correllaries, etc. related to MEN
in the workplace, and one had to extrapolate for women's involvement.
The interesting thing with this line of thought was that they therefore
potentially ignored a (possible) major force in the "humanizing" of the
workplace that they were interested in. Women COULD (I don't say that
they do) bring vastly different values to the jobs they undertake that
COULD (same disclaimer) make some of the differences Culbert and MacDonough
were looking for.
The problem being, of course, that women were "allowed" into the workplace
on pain of "fitting in" (i.e., accepting the norms of the particular en-
vironment, and playing the same games that the men play, by the same rules).
This is still what women, in general, are encouraged to do in order to
get ahead to this day. So, the "workplace" (anthropomorphized) maintains
it's status quo in spite of the benefits offered by it's inputs. (Not
completely, of course, because we have seen some changes -- a bloody battle
the whole way).
So, the question of "why don't men feel free to be more like women" may have
some validity, IF we presume that there are different life-values that
(generic) women have that would benefit all society if these values were more
widespread. Many people are very comfortable the way they are. Many people
are not, and don't acknowledge it. Many are uncomfortable. This ain't news.
Many people will ask "What value would there be in it, anyhow?", assuming
that there is little that society as a whole can gain from a (generic)
female perspective.
Others feel (as I probably have to admit to feeling) that there IS no
consistant generic female perspective, therefore, what value in looking
for a consistant benefit?
Still others feel that there is a generic female perspective and that it
DOES have value to society as a whole, and it has been underutilized to this
point.
I can't say which is most accurate (I'm not a generic person. . .), but it
seems to me that certain viewpoints eliminate investigation, while others
allow it, or encourage it.
Personally, I know lots of men who would appreciate greater freedoms than
their environments allow, but I can't say I've observed many of those men
taking any considerable steps in changing their environments (locally
speaking, ties and the like, not politically). Change HAS occurred,
because we see people coming to work in sport-shirts and jeans, of course,
indicating some change in social norms, possibly/probably related to the
actions of men, as well as women. What I'm saying, though, is that until men
act, in concert or as individuals, for the changes they desire, they can
expect the status quo to remain -- any changes brought about by the
"women's movement" is gravy. WHEN they act, they will see results (maybe
not the ones they expect, of course) in some proportion to their (personal
or concerted) power and influence. Since men, on the whole, HAVE more
power and influence in the workplace than women, one might expect greater
results for their actions -- which is one reason why women want men on
their side, if possible, and another reason why some women recognize in
men a dangerous opponent. It's a recognition of power.
Consider -- (generic) women have had to fight to achieve change. The
(generic) men in power haven't had the same fight. Perhaps the (generic)
man doesn't recognise his own route to the freedoms he desires.