zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/18/85)
I have receive may different flavors of response to some of
my recent postings and in several cases I have been asked
to seriously answer some questions which were stirred up in the minds
of the people I received the notes from .
Some I have answered directly and some I have not been able to
because of a bad path or something.
I have however received enough mail to bog down my login for a week
and so it seems thatmaybe the rest of the net might be interested in
my thughts. If not then NOW is the time to n passed the rest of this
very long article.
Jeanette zobjeck
ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
To the people whose mail I quote in this posting -
If your thoughts were not very important they would not
be included here.
JLZ
Charlie,
Here is a copy of a letter to another Charles about the same questions you had.
Also folloing is your note and I will also try to answer any other questions
in that.
Jeanette
********************************************************************************
Charles,
To clarify matters;
If you have been following my postings in net.women lately you will notice
2 distinctly different responses.
1) To the fellow who's name I deliberately forgot which was rather obscene
and more than stupid I replied rather quietly
2) to Joe, who appeared on the surface, to be sincere in his opinions I
seemed vicious.
In both instances the reply was actually metered to cause the individual
concerned to rethink his position.
In Joe's case the viciousness results because he holds the same attitudes
and opinions you appear to. I am taking the trouble to explain this because
it is extremely IMPORTANT.
The fact that the differences are so different blinds men ( ingeneral) to the
notion that the situation we are talking about (male/female responses to
potentially dangerous situations) is more than somewhat serious from
a woman's viewpoint.
To us the mere fact that the circustance exists is a threat which we live
with. To have it physically materialize is enough to cause grave psychological
damage RIGHT NOW not a day or week or month down the road.
This plus the imminent threat to our physical selves for which most
women are not equipped to protect themselves from either because of the
difference in size, strength, etc or through temperment which by reason of
our upbringing causes women (again in general) to feel threatened or
diminished by males.
If the differences were easy to see from your side then they would indeed
make the situation something which could be laughed off but as you should now
dimly see they are not.
The reason, therefor, for the explosiveness of my response is because of the
danger that this type of attitude will be given any credence by other men
in any way at all.
Perhaps the hardest thing in the world to do on this net or via
a keyboard is to convey the depth of emotion which women must deal with
which has no male analog.
I will however concede that males can learn to approximate the horror and fear
and revulsion which is a woman's experience in such situations. That
and the FACT that it DOES NOT GO AWAY. The feelings stirred up in such an
encounter live and eat away at our self image until eventually
if enough of them happen we begin to slip as people and become walking
talking bags of explosive paranoia in which all the world then contributes
to the degeneration.
I hope that helps explain why it is necessary to be vicious to the soft spoken
apparently concerned individual while treating the out and out louse with a
bit of compassion.
Jeanette Zobjeck
{ Jeannette,
{ Is this kind of name calling really called for? Do you really think
{ it helps your cause? Did you really *read* what he said? He made
{ some good points. Was he wrong that the woman was safely in a car at
{ some distance from the exhibitionist? Was she really in any danger?
{ Put your vitriol aside for a while and honestly answer my questions to
{ yourself and then re-read the article that you found so offensive. If
{ nothing else, it should become obvious that he was suggesting what the
{ ideal should *in his opinion* be. Or shouldn't men be allowed to have
{ opinions?
Men need to have and to voice opinions in women issues.
There would be no women doctors today if a male doctor had not
stepped in and testified that a patient who died in the first
woman-run hospital under the care of a woman doctor had in fact
been incurable and praised the conduct and treatment of the female doctors
and staff of the hsopital. There will be no progress in any feminist
advancement without males (even if some of us would wish that that were
not necessary).
{ The attitude that you so obviously displayed in your followup will
{ only drive away those who are trying to understand and to support your
{ cause.
{ In any case, perhaps you can, instead of displaying your hate, explain
{ to me and, if you like, to the net why he is wrong. Don't give me any
{ platitudes (yes, I know it's the wrong word) about second class
{ citizenry. *Explain* exactly why you think that a woman, save in her
{ vehicle, shouldn't be just as amused by a man exhibiting himself as a
{ man would be at a woman doing so as described.
{
{ Your followup article follows for your convenient reference.
{
{ Charlie
Charlie,
Above I copied a letter I wrote on the same subject to some one else.
To you I ad this:
The term "2nd Class Citizen" is not one I coined and perhaps it is
a bit trite but it points up something which men too often forget.
The black, red, yellow and brown skinned people in this country were
and are discriminated against because of their difference. Women suffer
from a slightly different form of discrimination. We are **protected**
even from ourselves.
Perhaps that sounds silly at first but think about it a little bit.
What is the genralization behind almost all women's rights issues.
Now I admit we have more things on the list which don't fall into
that catagory but as you see, we have been held backk FOR OUR OWN GOOD.
this is where women get the right to claim 2nd class citizen status
not from some cliche ridden speach inthe 50's or early 60's/
{
{ > > removed from the potential assailent). My point is the difference in
{ > > attitude toward the same situation between a male and a female. The
{ > > male attitude, as demonstrated by both Jeff and myself, is one of
{ > > amusement. The female attitude as illustrated by Ellen's incident,
{ > > is one of fear and anger. I realize that the fear of rape in almost
{ > > any encounter with a male, engendered by incidents such as those
{ > > recounted recently in this newsgroup, can make such a difference.
{ > > But isn't the ideal such that there would BE NO DIFFERENCE in the
{ > > male and female attitude to such an incident? It seems to me that
{ > > Ellen's attitude exacerbates the difference by assuming the
{ > > negative, pessimistic posture regarding the situation when it was
{ > > really an insignificant thing.
{ >
{ >
{ > INSIGNIFICANT!!!!
{ > You Blithering fool. Maybe you just cant think let alone read.
{ > The primary reason that it was NOT insignificant is the simple fact that
{ > women have been 2nd class people for so long that you simply cant imagine
{ > what the difference is!!!
{ >
OK so here is your biggest gripe and for good reason. My vehemence strikes
a chord deep inside which says OUCH.
The truth is there and you can feel it but you never thought about it that
way before. Ideal situations usually don't even exist in laboratories.
I would sell my soul to be able to see the day when there would be
no difference. Ellen Eades was not assuming anything she was spelling
it out just like it is every day all over the world for women in every
occupation or vocation. It really isn't an insignificant thing,..we so far
can only wish that it will be someday.
{
{ > not so divergent the ability to understand would be universal.
{ >
{
{ What?
{ Is it safe to assume that you opt for the former?
{
I don't really opt for either - I would rather the case didn't exist.
but with the assumption as necessary today YES I would dearly love to have
men really know what and why women feel as they do so they would not be
so ready to underestimate the power of the moment.
Maybe you as one man can and do know this personally, maybe you know others
who are as empathic, but how many MORE are there who don't?
{ >
{ > >
{ > > I have one other thing to say regarding MY attitude to this incident,
{ > > which is that I have several friends who live in the French Quarter
{ > > of New Orleans where such incidents as Ellens happen not infrequently
{ > > (both male and female) and so I admit that my attitude may be biased
{ > > towards the lighter side. But really, I'd rather laugh about
{ > > something than be upset about it.
{ > >
{ > we all would but there is nothing laughable about it.
{ >
{
{ Why?
{ (Remember, no more name calling, now. I really want to know.)
{
I'm not name calling Charlie - other than for emphasis - the ability to laugh
is mankind's greatest asset and the greatest curse.
An asset because laughter can be a great and powerful medicine to smooth our
way through life and make this world a little more beautiful and a nicer place
to be.
A curse because laughter can be used to hurt and worse laughter can be used
to diminish the importance on a situation and that is not only bad it is
worng.
The lighter side of being a woman today is truly wonderful the lighter
side of being alive today is fantastic the lighter side does not extend
to this area because so little has been done to make it any less traumatic.
{ > > I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than ever, but that's not
{ > > so. I sympathize with Ellen's anger and if she were a friend I'd do
{ > > my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with her position as I
{ > > do not really understand it.
{ > > --
{ > > Joe Arceneaux
{ > >
{ >
{ > No, Joe, you are not unsympathetic - just pathetic.
{
{ Oh, come on now!
{
{ >
{ > If Ellen were your friend I would expect that you would be ready and desirous
{ > of much more than comforting here.
{
{ What, specifically, do you have in mind?
Imagine ( and this is deliberately simplified to make typing it less
of a novel sized endeavor).
You,
Take your dog out for it's evening walk.
You are acosted by a stranger who drags you into some nearby bushes
and beats the living tar out of you, kill's your dog and
robs you, takes your identification and leaves you for dead.
Somehow,
You struggle to the street and a passing police patrol picks you up
and takes you to a hospital.
There you recount what happens to you.
ALL
during your statement the cop remains impassive but when you're done
he leaves you with the distinct impression that in some way you
were robbed and beaten because you "asked for it" and no matter
what you say or do that feeling hangs with you.
To make matters worse your boss and your friends and neighbors
and even total strangers who have read the news in the paper
or seen it on TV or heard it on the radio begin to avoid you or
worse yet they come by to offer their support and help but also
just to see for themselves if just maybe you didnt really have
someting to do with it beyond just being at the wrong place at
the wrong time.
{
{ > To many men are in your position and holding your attitudes about women.
{ > This is the primary reason that sexual bias still exists at all.
{ >
{
{ Interesting! If we suggest that men and women are different we are
{ exhibiting sexual bias and if, as here, a man suggests that men and
{ women should respond similarly under similar circumstances, we are
{ *still* exhibiting sexual bias.
{
{ What *DO* you want from us? Actually that is a rhetorical question.
{ It is pretty obvious from your posting that you want equality as long
{ as it favors you. If I thought all women had the same attitude, I,
{ for one, would be adamently opposed to granting anything that you ask
{ for. Fortunately, I'm not (yet) convinced that that is true so I
{ still support equal rights for *everyone*.
{
no Charlie, I will try and answer the question.
I want to be myself and recognized for my ability and my inability which ever
is greater. I want to be free to use my talents and abilities as the
Lord saw fit to give me to make my life and that of those I love most a little
bit nicer. I want only the recognition I earn and which is due me.
Most of all I want a better world for my children than the one I grew up
in.
The bias Joe and other men show is perhaps not the cruel and demeaning
bias which put women, or other minorities, down but rather a type of bias
which ignores the differences which are limiting women and play up the
ones which might tend to cut into men's world.
I don't need to go to deeply into that as I have made several postings on the
subject. To you, in attempting to make a fair answer I only mention it.
{ >
{ > jeanette l. zobjeck
{ > ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
{ >
You see Charlie I'm not the terrible whitch I come accross as but
more correctly I am one woman who has seen how terrible this world can
be and also how wonderful it can be. I would much prefer the latter and
almost everything I do is aimed that way even though on the surface it
does not seem so.
I have learned many lessons then hard way that most men and women
on this net have not. I conduct myself accordingly. I have experiences which
have formed my personality and which have helped get me to where I am today
and I know from experience what works - in general- and I try and use
what I have to make this world just a little bit nicer each day.
To quote my late fater:
"I sometimes wonder each day if our mother really
loves me, Jeanette. ....But then she'll give me
hell for something and I know she really does care
after all"
----Leanord Wm. Zobjeck (deceased)
I guess my own version is:
I consider the day a total waste less I catch hell from someone.
the reasoning being only someone who cares will bother to
become very upset when you mess something up. It is a small
sign of needing and caring and it is just as important as
a hug from that Special someOne in yor life which can
brighten up a day which seems to be all down hill.
If I didn't care what anyone thought I could have a real ball in life
and it wouldnt matter to anyone but me but I guess i amstuck liking people
even if I have only met them on the net.
To anyone who cares:
If each of us, each day, can diminish the amount of bias which
we see around us pretty soon there won't be any left anywhere.
jeanette l. zobjeck
ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbiejla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (06/24/85)
Having been away the past week at the architecture symposium, I can only now address some recent postings concerning one of my articles. I apologize for the delay. As one might imagine, I was surprised by the level of bile in Jeanette Zobjeck's recent posting. But not too surprised, as I have been reading Jeanette's postings for a while now. Although tempted to, I will refrain from speculating on the possible sources of Jeanette's hostilities. After all, as someone pointed out this is net.women, not net.flame, and I was and am endeavoring to examine various issues in a serious light. However, in defense of her rather vicious article Jeanette writes: > In both instances the reply was actually metered to cause the individual > concerned to rethink his position. My feeling is that 1), positive reinforcement is highly preferable to intensely negative strokes, 2) name calling should be saved for net.flame and avoided in serious discussions between supposedly intelligent persons, 3) it is insulting to think that other people (me in this case) must be viciously treated in order for them to consider some issue, and finally 4), if Jeanette's hostility was merely a device, as she says, well, I think it's really a bad idea to lay such an attack on someone unless one really mean it. I think Jeanette's attitude is wrong and preclusive to her espoused cause. > The lighter side of being a woman today is truly wonderful the lighter > side of being alive today is fantastic the lighter side does not extend > to this area because so little has been done to make it any less traumatic. It seems to me that Jeanette is a prime source of trauma in this area. I find many of her articles (although often amusing) quite abrasive. I feel that a softer flavor of writing might me more helpful to her cause, as well as giving up her apparent attitude that most people are below her intellectual level. > OK so here is your biggest gripe and for good reason. My vehemence strikes > a chord deep inside which says OUCH. > The truth is there and you can feel it but you never thought about it that > way before. It seems to me quite condescending to assume that someone would never think of something unless it was pointed out to them. Let me go on to other things. In this article, Jeanette purports to address various questions sent to her by "Charl(es,ie)." I'd like to say that in my opinion she doesn't really answer them and I'm hoping that she might try again and do a more accurate job. I do however, take exception to several of the things she does say. > Perhaps the hardest thing in the world to do on this net or via > a keyboard is to convey the depth of emotion which women must deal with > which has no male analog. This is bullshit of the most sexist nature. I cannot believe that women possess deeper emotions than men. Perhaps the single most annoying part of Jeanette's article is excerpted here: > { > > I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than ever, but that's not > { > > so. I sympathize with Ellen's anger and if she were a friend I'd do > { > > my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with her position as I > { > > do not really understand it. > { > > -- > { > > Joe Arceneaux > { > > > { > > { > No, Joe, you are not unsympathetic - just pathetic. > { > { Oh, come on now! > { > { > > { > If Ellen were your friend I would expect that you would be ready and desirous > { > of much more than comforting here. > { > { What, specifically, do you have in mind? > > Imagine ( and this is deliberately simplified to make typing it less > of a novel sized endeavor). > You, > Take your dog out for it's evening walk. > You are acosted by a stranger who drags you into some nearby bushes > and beats the living tar out of you, kill's your dog and > robs you, takes your identification and leaves you for dead. > > Somehow, > You struggle to the street and a passing police patrol picks you up > and takes you to a hospital. > There you recount what happens to you. > ALL > during your statement the cop remains impassive but when you're done > he leaves you with the distinct impression that in some way you > were robbed and beaten because you "asked for it" and no matter > what you say or do that feeling hangs with you. > To make matters worse your boss and your friends and neighbors > and even total strangers who have read the news in the paper > or seen it on TV or heard it on the radio begin to avoid you or > worse yet they come by to offer their support and help but also > just to see for themselves if just maybe you didnt really have > someting to do with it beyond just being at the wrong place at > the wrong time. Now it seems, from my vantage point, that Jeanette is suggesting that I would rape a friend in Ellen Eade's position. I think this is *MOST* revolting. It is hard for me to imagine that this is just another device to get me to think about the issue. > The bias Joe and other men show is perhaps not the cruel and demeaning > bias which put women, or other minorities, down but rather a type of bias > which ignores the differences which are limiting women and play up the > ones which might tend to cut into men's world. Once again, I recognize that there are differences (such as the potential for rape) which constrain women, but some of these are attitudinal in nature (e.g., the result of societal conditioning) and may be changed by the personal desire to do so. I suggested that in Ellen Eade's case a different attitude on her part would have left her amused rather than angry and frustrated. I maintain that it is better to move in the direction of a situation where both men and women would find Ellen's incident non-threatening, rather than a situation where both men and women end up feeling frustrated and angry. > I consider the day a total waste less I catch hell from someone. I find this a pretty shitty attitude, but what's worse is that Jeanette is apparently willing to assume that everyone else feels that way. This is overlong, so I will terminate after one last observation. In her original response to my last article, Jeanette says: > You Blithering fool. Maybe you just cant think let alone read. I would respond that if she would learn to spell, let alone form decent sentences, that that would facilitate reading her rather obscurant writings. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/25/85)
> > My feeling is that 1), positive reinforcement is highly preferable > to intensely negative strokes, 2) name calling should be saved for > net.flame and avoided in serious discussions between supposedly > intelligent persons, 3) it is insulting to think that other people > (me in this case) must be viciously treated in order for them to > consider some issue, and finally 4), if Jeanette's hostility was > merely a device, as she says, well, I think it's really a bad idea to > lay such an attack on someone unless one really mean it. > > I think Jeanette's attitude is wrong and preclusive to her espoused > cause. OK, My intent stands - I want men and women to rethink their attitudes on the "women's place" I have to admit that I was probably more caustic then I needed to be - I get wound up and engage my keyboard before engaging my brain fully to wit I owe some people an apology. Since I may not be aware of all I'll make it here. I am not backing off on my opinion but I do admit that my approach was stronger and less amenable (sp) to acceptance than it could have been. > > > The truth is there and you can feel it but you never thought about it that > > way before. > > It seems to me quite condescending to assume that someone would never > think of something unless it was pointed out to them. The operative word is WAY not meaning that it was an idea /concept which had not been noticed and given due thought but simply that perhaps the view- point needed to be different. Each of the 3 blind men saw an elephant differently - only a sighted person could tell that all 3 were correct ** as far as they went**. The same generic applies here. > > > > Perhaps the hardest thing in the world to do on this net or via > > a keyboard is to convey the depth of emotion which women must deal with > > which has no male analog. > > This is bullshit of the most sexist nature. I cannot believe that > women possess deeper emotions than men. > I didnt say women have deeper emotions then men only different ie no male analog. I have never said nor implied that men do not have emotions and very powerful ones at that only that by natural difference there are emotional areas which are different for each and that it was very hard to convey these via the net. I do imply that the same set of difficulties pertains to men and men's emotions as well. > Perhaps the single most annoying part of Jeanette's article is > excerpted here: >. >. >. >. >. >. > Now it seems, from my vantage point, that Jeanette is suggesting that > I would rape a friend in Ellen Eade's position. I think this is > *MOST* revolting. It is hard for me to imagine that this is just > another device to get me to think about the issue. No, I'm not suggesting that you would do such a thing (other men have but even that is not the issue here) What I am suggesting is that society as a whole presents very little compassion for the victim which leads to several very bad ends: 1) The woman presses charges, goes to trial and public opinion both supports her on the one hand and implies tacitly that perhaps she did bring the episode on herself. 2) The woman refuses to go to court out of fear or something inside her and then she has to reconcile that feeling of fear of a return of the attacker and public sentiment that maybe she really wasn't raped at all - After all in practically any other crime the victim has all the laws and rules on their side why not prosecute. All to often with rape the victim simply can not face the strain of a trial, > > > I consider the day a total waste less I catch hell from someone. > > I find this a pretty shitty attitude, but what's worse is that > Jeanette is apparently willing to assume that everyone else feels > that way. Perhaps it is only shitty because only part of the concept is quoted here. the rest of it goes something like this: There is no reason to bother to pay any attention to the efforts of someone you care nothing about, unless your the boss person. If someone takes the trouble to correct me or even get upset with me it must be because they see something of value being wasted in me and by me. Than I have a chance to change and hopefully improve myself or at least to evaluate myself and my position to see if change is warranted. Thanks for caring and helping me learn more about myself as others see me. > Here's my answer Joe. I'm not the "obscurant " person you think I am and hopefully someday I will learn to temper my toungue. I get mad like anyone else, I just happen to be more vocal than most. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie