zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (03/01/85)
Recently a women's talk show air on a Madison,Wisconsin TV
station featured3 transexual women (male to female ).
One of them was the first in the United States. Another one was
a housewife and the third was pre-surgical.
The interesting, or perhaps unsettling thing I noted was
during the part of the show when questions from the audience were
answered.
One older woman who apparently, judging only by her accent,
asked the questions:
1) Can you have children?
A) No.
2) If you can not have children than what good are you as
women?
A) We feel equal, whole, a part of the world.
The thought here which bothers me is How many of us out there
in the world feel that our prime function in this world is to have babies.
I feel I have a lot more to contribute then simply increasing the population.
Since there are also many women who, for one reason or another, can not
have children. Does that fact also make them useless, non-contributing
hangers on in society or does the fact that they were born with a
females body make them exempt from that concept. Is it only wrong to
BECOME (physically) a woman who can not have children because your
body once had the wrong parts on it.
I am perhaps oversimplifying the sex change asspect because it is only
important as background. The important, as I see it, issue is the attitude
which says we, as women, have a requirement to maintain our place and
to live as if reproduction was our only job in life.
Since procreation takes both sexes why then shouldn't males also
be burdened with guilt for not being primarily concerned with the
making of babies and with a career or what ever second?
Women will never be free of the fact that they carry the child inside them
but this is not, again to me, the main reason we exist nor should it be.
As a group in the working arena we must work very hard as individuals
to keep attitudes like this (which we probably grew up with) from
holding us back.
jeanette l. zobjeck All opinions expressed
in this article are
wlcrjs! strictly my own !!!!
ihnp4!< >zubbie
ihlpa!
=======================================================================annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (03/03/85)
>References: <617@wlcrjs.UUCP> > 2) If you can not have children than what good are you as > women? > > The thought here which bothers me is How many of us out there > in the world feel that our prime function in this world is to have babies. > Women will never be free of the fact that they carry the child inside them > but this is not, again to me, the main reason we exist nor should it be. > As a group in the working arena we must work very hard as individuals > to keep attitudes like this (which we probably grew up with) from > holding us back. > > jeanette l. zobjeck I agree. As a young girl, grade school, I remember how the attitudes of 'you're just going to grow up and have babies anyway, so why study? Your husband will support you and you should concentrate on learning to be a good housewife. Take home-ec.' I wanted to take shop. You know, that is a terrible thing to tell a girl. If she respects your attitudes, she might believe you. I did. Most folks are surprised when they find out that I have a 15 yr old daughter and a 14 yr old son (I'm 32). They are even more surprised if they find out that it was PLANNED that way. I was married for almost a year when I got pregnant. I figured that I could do a good job as a housewife and I might as well have my children while I was young. Then I would still be young enough to enjoy life when they grew up. As it turned out, my choice of a husband was not at all a good one. (I'm trying not to express what an *%&*;{# he turned out to be.) Let's just say that after 4 yrs we parted company. So, there I was at 19 with two small children and no skills to speak of. And he has never payed support. (I even took him to court several times.) (Thank <whoever> for an understanding set of parents) (If only they would have not promoted those very Ideas which Zubbie was talking about) The only insight I can give to my daughter at this point, is that it is probably MUCH easier to go to school and THEN get a full time job, instead of doing them at the same time as I have for the past 7 yrs. Anyway, now that I can no longer have children I don't feel any LESS of a woman. In fact, I think that life is great. "And what do you want to be when you grow up, little girl?" "I want to be an engineer. 'Toot... Toot..'"
sommers@topaz.ARPA (Liz Sommers) (03/05/85)
> > The thought here which bothers me is How many of us out there > in the world feel that our prime function in this world is to have babies. > I feel I have a lot more to contribute then simply increasing the population. > Since there are also many women who, for one reason or another, can not > have children. Does that fact also make them useless, non-contributing > hangers on in society or does the fact that they were born with a > females body make them exempt from that concept. Is it only wrong to > BECOME (physically) a woman who can not have children because your > body once had the wrong parts on it. > > Women will never be free of the fact that they carry the child inside them > but this is not, again to me, the main reason we exist nor should it be. > As a group in the working arena we must work very hard as individuals > to keep attitudes like this (which we probably grew up with) from > holding us back. > > > jeanette l. zobjeck All opinions expressed I have had a lot of time to think about this since my previous posting to net.women.only. (Thanks to all who answered my letter, I was not in great shape to answer yours, but they cheered me up.) I am one of those women who always had wanted to have children. I am one of ten (through various marriages) and had always enjoyed being part of a family. My mother juggled all the kids AND a career, but she would get pregnant everytime she either got depressed or "fell in love". She once told me that "Being pregnant makes me feel like a woman." I guess this was insiduous. I started trying to get pregnant when I was 18, I succeeded when I was 26, then I had 3 abortions caused by medical problems. The last pregnancy (the 4th) was "healthy", I carried for 5 months and then had a hysterectomy caused by complications in deliverying a dead, deformed baby. As the doctor has pointed out - I had no choice about the hysterectomy (placenta acreta, placenta previa, loss of 9 pints of blood, shock, the whole bit) and I would probably NEVER have been able to carry a live baby to term. I have never managed a kid, and now I never will. I am 32. Yow, can I go on? Sorry, but I thought some background was necessarry). Back to the question. I think a lot of us have felt that if carrying a child was not our "prime function", at least it was one that we were looking forward to and placed a large amount of value on. I know that I never wanted a "career", I wanted a family and children. A career is what my mother did, and it just did not look all that exciting. Besides, I have supported myself since I was 14, working has never been an option, always a necessity. I was looking to find my identity in some version of the nuclear family. Mom says "You were living in some '50's dream that did not work then." Maybe too much Leave it to Beaver. The urge to have a child is VERY strong, even if it is not "politically correct". The urge to nurture is there, at least for me. Yes, I am a self-supporting (sort of - pink collar work doesn't pay too well), productive member of my society. But for me, there is something missing. I notice that as my friends and family get older, they also want children. Myabe because being pregnant feels so good, maybe because we would like someone to teach our mistakes too. My job was chosen because I could do it and raise a baby. The thing is to find something to do as interesting as raising another person. I do not feel satisfied - but this is possibly because the job opportunities open to women in my area are not terribly satisfying. Contrary to popular opinion, after a certain age, hacking does not fulfill all. Being a big-shot programmer is sort of like mental masturbation in a way, I don't really want to go teach calculus, and I will not work for business on moral grounds. Options are limited by the economy as well as by the sexist attitudes in Amerika. Sheeet, I guess I didn't answer your question, but maybe I gave some point of view. liz ps. PLEASE PLEASE do NOT send me flames about adoption. I am not in any emotional,physical, financial or maritial state to make such a thing feasible at this time. -- liz sommers uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers arpa: sommers@rutgers
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (03/06/85)
> The thought here which bothers me is How many of us out there > in the world feel that our prime function in this world is to have babies. > jeanette l. zobjeck All opinions expressed Absolutely not. On the other hand, it is the primary reason for the human race having both women and men. > Since there are also many women who, for one reason or another, can not > have children. Does that fact also make them useless, non-contributing > hangers on in society or does the fact that they were born with a > females body make them exempt from that concept. Is it only wrong to > BECOME (physically) a woman who can not have children because your > body once had the wrong parts on it. No, don't let anyone tell you you have to have babies, or, for that matter, that you have to do anything. Most such rules come from people trying to justify their own decisions by asking you to replicate them. >Contrary to popular opinion, after a certain age, hacking does not fulfill >all. >liz sommers As a non-hacker, I'm really glad to hear this.
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (03/07/85)
> "I want to be an engineer. 'Toot... Toot..'"
Reminds me of the *wonderful* song by Peggy Seeger, recounting an episode
similar in many respects to what Zubbie and Annadiana have been
complaining about. If you can find a recording (or even better see
Peggy and Ewan MacColl (sp?) when they tour), by all means do!
I'll see if I can find (and can post without violating copyright)
the lyrics. I'll certainly post a reference to a recording when
I dig it up.
--
Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (03/15/85)
> liz sommers: > The urge to have a child is VERY > strong, even if it is not "politically correct". To my mind, at least, the urge to have a child is not, in and of itself, politically incorrect. Women (and men, too) need the freedom to *choose* to want to have children. What's wrong is the *assumption* that they'll want to. Many women want to have kids because of the societal pressure generated by this assumption. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
fek@wuphys.UUCP (Frank Kramer) (03/27/85)
NOTE: To those who subscribe to the "creationist theory" of life on earth - disregard the paragraph below. The very idea that bearing children is a response to societal pressure is absurd. We are here because our ancestors were very good at siring and bearing children (who can live to reproduce). Society in the Peoples Republic of China demands that one child per couple be the normal limit. That particular societal pressure results in things like female infanticide because, for some strange reason, people seem inclined to have children to pass on their genes (and their names) regardless of societal pressure to the contrary. We have children because that particular propensity is in hardware for the great majority of human beings. As a final opinion, would all of those people who think that childbearing precludes economic productivity please come out of the trees and join our society. And would those who think that having the ability to bear children and the pursuance of that abilty is somehow a source of shame please go into the mountains for a good weekend of careful self-examination. That's all, Frank !ihnp4!wuphys
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (04/01/85)
In article <241@wuphys.UUCP> fek@wuphys.UUCP (Frank Kramer) writes: >That particular societal pressure results in things >like female infanticide because, for some strange reason, people seem >inclined to have children to pass on their genes (and their names) > Science lesson: female children will pass on your genes (with minor exceptions). As for your name, there's nothing to prevent that either, although I'm not an expert on PRC laws and customs. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA