jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/02/85)
This problem of what is masculine and what is feminine, and people's expectations of such, combined with the discussion of aggressiveness in women, has given me cause for thought. Most of my life I've been told, directly or indirectly, that I did not meet with other's expections of how females should properly behave. I have heard that I am too aggressive, that I get angry instead of breaking into tears, that I am too outspoken, too self-assured and too loud. One asshole even had the nerve to suggest that I was androgenised as a fetus and that made me "more like a man". Well, I think it's all alot of hogwash, and before you get the idea that I look like a Russian female shot putter, let me assure that I am 5'9" with an hourglass figure, I wear dresses, heels and makeup and no one ever accused me of *looking* like a man. Just acting like one, as if that were my problem and not theirs. They don't mean rude or unmannerly, either, but simply "masculine". And many of the same men who have made comments to that effect have also tried to get me into bed, so obviously their "standards" don't always apply. Conversely, I've been shunned by some of those women who seem to think that feminine equates with prissy, manipulative, deceitful and backbiting. I get the feeling that because I say what I think, I therefore "don't play fair". :-) I often think, though, that if I were a man, I'd be seen as having lots of "drive", being a real "go-getter", a "no-bullshit" kinda guy. I have never ever wanted to change my biological sex, however - I suit me just fine, it's everyone else's attitudes that should change ! In short, the whole thing is ridiculous. You would think that an ideal individual would combine the best traits of both sexes, but societal expectations will have to change radically first, I think. A good fictional example of what I would view as an ideal can be found in the Vonda MacIntyre story "Looking for Satan", which is in the third book of the Thieve's World series. I'd be interested in what other people think, both in what they see around them, and in examining their own behavior. In some of Sunny Kirsten's recent postings, she makes it sound as though men are responsible for all the violence, hate and aggression in the world, and I'm afraid it just ain't so. It is true that some men are more violent than some women, but to imply a black-and-white dichotomy is to ignore the enormous variance between individuals. When the occasion arises, women seem to be just as capable of aggression, hatred, bigotry and jingoism as men. And the majority of men are reasonably peaceful, housebroken people. The big exceptions seem to be among men who never seem to have grown up (like a small handful we all know and love on the net), the ones for whom all of life is cowboys and Indians. I don't buy arguments about the Big Difference(s) between men and women, since for one thing it divides humans into classes, and puts people into perceived ghettos. This is not the end we want to achieve. What we really want is to take each individual on that person's merits, good or bad, and work towards a non-sexist, non-racist society. In my family, I'm the aggressive one, the ambitious, stubborn systems analyst; my brother is a sensitive, peaceful, friendly artist. This suits us fine and our parents are very pleased with simply having well-adjusted, productive children. We're very glad they didn't try to force any notions on us of how we were expected to behave, and that's as it should be, don't you think ? -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
crs@lanl.ARPA (09/03/85)
Thank you, Jody. I'll probably get flamed for wasting net.women's
time but I enjoyed your article enough that I think a public thank you
is in order.
Charlie
--
All opinions are mine alone...
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (Head Roach) (09/04/85)
-> I have heard
->that I am too aggressive, that I get angry instead of breaking into tears,
->that I am too outspoken, too self-assured and too loud. One asshole even
->had the nerve to suggest that I was androgenised as a fetus and that
->made me "more like a man". Well, I think ....................................
->.................................................... They don't mean rude
->or unmannerly, either, but simply "masculine".
A little problem here, how do you KNOW what they did or didn't mean. Oh
they told you did they, can you say backpeddling ?
-> Conversely, I've been shunned by some of those women who seem to
->think that feminine equates with prissy, manipulative, deceitful and
->backbiting. I get the feeling that because I say what I think, I therefore
->"don't play fair". :-) I often think, though, that if I were a man, I'd
->be seen as having lots of "drive", being a real "go-getter", a "no-bullshit"
->kinda guy. I have never ever wanted to change my biological sex, however -
->I suit me just fine, it's everyone else's attitudes that should change !
->
->jcpatilla
->
Jody,
If you described man in the terms you just used as " too aggressive....
too outspoken,too self assured and too loud", you'd hear him called things
other than "having lots of 'drive'", " a real go-getter","no bullshit kinda
guy". The most frequent term used would be "BALL BUSTER" [non sexist pun
intended], people descibed thusly do get ahead, mostly at others expense.
I wholeheartedly agree with your stance in being the person your
most happy with and let the rest of the world go fly a kite but don't
equate masculinity with the small percentage of *ballbusters* out there.
Dave Peak
@ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"All the net's a stage and all the men and women merely ham actors !"
- Rev Peak (apologies to Bill S.)jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/05/85)
> If you described man in the terms you just used as " too aggressive.. > too outspoken,too self assured and too loud", you'd hear him called things > other than "having lots of 'drive'", " a real go-getter","no bullshit kinda > guy". The most frequent term used would be "BALL BUSTER" [non sexist pun > intended], people descibed thusly do get ahead, mostly at others expense. > Dave Peak I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The point is that *women* are expected to be meek, softspoken, non-aggressive, etc. By *not* being so, I've been condemned for being "like a man" (guess I haven't been keeping my place, eh ?). If I really *were* a man, my behavior would be accepted as normal. It's not that I'm too aggressive, too outspoken, etc, FOR A *MAN*. The problem lies in societal expectations of what is appropriate for male and female behaviors. (Or maybe you just think I'm rude and obnoxious) -- jcpatilla "At night, the ice weasels come."
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/09/85)
In article <509@osiris.UUCP>, jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > > Conversely, I've been shunned by some of those women who seem to > think that feminine equates with prissy, manipulative, deceitful and > backbiting. I get the feeling that because I say what I think, I therefore > "don't play fair". :-) I often think, though, that if I were a man, I'd > be seen as having lots of "drive", being a real "go-getter", a "no-bullshit" > kinda guy. I have never ever wanted to change my biological sex, however - > I suit me just fine, it's everyone else's attitudes that should change ! I thought that in the business world most people think that a person who is outspoken and "says what they think" is "immature" and that the manipulative types often come out looking like the nice guy. But this is different from aggressive mannerisms. Men are not financially penalized for having an aggressive manner, but women are.
DONWON@houxf.UUCP (Head Roach) (09/10/85)
-->> If you described man in the terms you just used as " too aggressive..
-->> too outspoken,too self assured and too loud", you'd hear him called things
-->> other than "having lots of 'drive'", " a real go-getter","no bullshit kinda
-->> guy". The most frequent term used would be "BALL BUSTER" [non sexist pun
-->> intended], people descibed thusly do get ahead, mostly at others expense.
-->> Dave Peak
-->
--> I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The point is
-->that *women* are expected to be meek, softspoken, non-aggressive, etc. By *not*
-->being so, I've been condemned for being "like a man" (guess I haven't been
-->keeping my place, eh ?). If I really *were* a man, my behavior would be accepted
-->as normal. It's not that I'm too aggressive, too outspoken, etc, FOR A *MAN*.
-->The problem lies in societal expectations of what is appropriate for male and
-->female behaviors.
Agree totally ! However due to the "newness" of "aggressive women" the idea
of being "too ........" for women has a tendency to lump all "aggressive women"
into a ballbuster type of category. Unfortunately for us all (m & w), at the
moment a more aggressive (than what is traditionally expected) women is too
often viewed as being a fanatic ( and who's going to listen to a fanatic).
From previous postings of yours it seems that you fall into the category of
" a more aggressive woman" than "an aggressive woman". Some others posters
do fall into the latter definition and their views seem to be discounted by
a lot of the male correspondents( see previous paragraph on why).
--> (Or maybe you just think I'm rude and obnoxious)
-->
Far from it, you're probably one of the more polite posters, without being
too apologetic about everything. There are people on both fringes of all issues
of feminism that I do think are rude and obnoxious, BUT they've only got
themselves to blame as the only picture people get through the net is the
picture one paints of oneself.
-->jcpatilla
-->
Keep posting ! Your articles get more feeling and message across
than a thousand from a fanatic.
Dave Peak
NB @ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"All the net's a stage and all the men and women merely ham actors !"
- Rev Peak (apologies to Bill S.)