nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (06/28/85)
Parsons: >> It is unfortunate, but true, that, however much we may try to treat people >> as individuals, we invariably bring a whole raft of preconceived notions >> (e.g., women are emotional, not rational) with us at a subconscious level >> when evaluating the qualifications of people. Peter B: > My question is; why in the above paragraph is it implied that women are > as rational as men (contrary to the traditional stereotypes) but it is still > "accepted" that women have many of the old stereotypical attributes, like > sensitivity, etc. Parsons: It has been my experience that people of both sexes can run the gamut of attributes; women can be rational, men can be sensitive, etc. Men have, in my opinion, been socialized to be more rational and women, more sensitive, so we tend to approach them with those preconceived notions. One reason I think that there has been some emphasis (i.e., "it is still 'accepted'") that women are sensitive is because for a long time, any feminine quality tended to be denigrated. To be "sensitive" actually suggested something negative. Only recently have some of us learned to feel good about our non-physical "a-submissive" feminine attributes, so we are enjoying saying things like "women are sensitive" and feeling good about it. (And recognizing the lack of sensitivity as something negative.) > I thought that many of these values and traits are in kind of a ying and > yang situation - and that it may therefore be impossible to be both sensitive > and aggresive for instance. Perhaps one cannot be sensitive and agressive at the same time (although one *can* be aggressively sensitive)...But one can certainly choose to display different attributes on different occasions. Being rational in some contexts does not interfere with my being emotional in others. I rather like being able to be both, even if one tends to exclude the other at a given moment. > I guess I'm reacting to my perception that many > women are effectivley saying "I can be anything I want, and I'll be as good > or better at it than men". I think there are some tradeoffs. I, for one, am not saying "I can be anything I want, and I'll be as good or better at it than men." I *am* saying, "I am a lot more than the stereotypes of women would suggest that I am. Much of what I am is what has been stereotyped as 'male' and I don't intend to buy into that. In fact, in some of those areas, I *am* better than some men...likewise, wome men are better than I in areas traditionally labeled female. In any case, I intend to exercise the freedom to be "as good or better at" whatever I am than whoever I can manage to be as good or better than. (Marcel, if you're reading this, I've already spoken quite sternly to myself about the grammar of that last sentence. :-) ) > In my (possibly limited) understanding most of the elements of our traditional > roles are essentially complementary (women are taught to "weak" so that men > will appear strong, for instance), and therefore I don't think the average > person can possess both qualities. Hmmm...well, I rather enjoy having some strengths that compliment certain of my husband's weaknesses. And I greatly appreciate the fact that he has strengths that compliment my weaknesses. (By the way, there are enough weaknesses in both of us that neither of us needs to be *taught* any more! This is one of the things about which I feel intense anger--the idea that it is all right to teach a woman to be weak to compliment a man.) > Isn't our social revolution leading to where women and men will draw forom > the same set of attributes rather than women becoming like men (heaven > forbid!) or men becoming like women (not much better but perhaps more > peaceful)? I certainly hope so! But by drawing from the same set of attributes, does it not follow that, in some respects, we will become more alike? That does not keep us from enjoying the *real* differences. That's really where my beef is...I hate the artificial differences that are falsely set out as the real ones. > This article is written as a question, not as a judgement. And is taken as such. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL