flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/12/84)
But what is being objected to here? ONE person's opinions about men
(and in some other's letters, the fact that whole bunch of women
didn't leap onto the bandwagon to defend men's feelings*). Lissen,
[* Iconoclasts's note: the author's choice of word here constitues
an error in diction. So SIC em!]
honeys, ya gotsta take care o yo own feelins yoseff.
L S Chabot
Correct me if I misunderstand: the point here is that men have to defend
themselves, as a class, from "reverse bigotry", with no help from women; and
likewise, women should not demand help from men when women are the target?
Well NO DEAL. I intend to come to other groups' defense whenever I perceive
that they are getting rotten treatment, AND I EXPECT THE SAME FROM YOU, AND
I'LL GET ON YOUR CASE ABOUT IT. So sign me, "My sister's keeper".
Now that NET WARS is over (I hope), let me say a few words about
those famous words. It sounds very easy to denounce "most men" as
"insensitive, chauvanist assholes". But did you really have an eye
for the sensitive kind? DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT IS A "SIGN"
OF SENSITIVITY? DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT THAT?
[EMPHASIS added]
-- Farzin Mokhtarian Path: ubc-vision!mokhtar
A H H A !!!
A A H H A A !!!
A A H H A A !!!
AAAAA HHHHHHH AAAAA !
A A H H A A
A A H H A A !!!
This guy Farzin Mokhtarian must be very smart -- he keeps saying things I
agree with! (:-))
--The expiring iconoclast
(I'm leaving soon for Wash U. in St. Lou),
Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flinkron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (07/17/84)
Now that NET WARS is over (I hope), let me say a few words about those famous words. It sounds very easy to denounce "most men" as "insensitive, chauvanist assholes". But did you really have an eye for the sensitive kind? DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT IS A "SIGN" OF SENSITIVITY? DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT THAT? [EMPHASIS added] -- Farzin Mokhtarian Path: ubc-vision!mokhtar ************************** Nah. All pretentiousness and hand wringing aside, sensitivity in males is often viewed by BOTH sexes as weakness. The assholes may be assholes, but they don't spend their nights alone. Do we say one thing and do another, I wonder? -- "Trivia is important." Ron Christian Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif. (...ios!wjvax!ron)
tims@mako.UUCP (07/20/84)
ogated, while unsuccessful patterns will be abandoned. The fact remains that there are all kinds of men and all kinds of women, who accept different modes of behavior. So if you're a women and a man acts like a macho-MCP-whatever, remember that although he may not be appealling to you, there are plenty of women who will like it just fine, otherwise, he wouldn't act that way. (I don't deny any social arguments for said behavior, I am just pointing it out)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/24/84)
> All pretentiousness and hand wringing aside, sensitivity in males > is often viewed by BOTH sexes as weakness. The assholes may be assholes, > but they don't spend their nights alone. Do we say one thing and do another, > I wonder? [RON CHRISTIAN] One of the saddest but truest facets of this whole topic of discussion is that, for all the claims of sexual progress and enlightened thinking on sex roles, such things are still the status quo. That means not only that men live by the "old rules" but that women do too. Why? Because many people just don't know any better, because those people who just accept such things without thinking about them don't realize what behavior means to those around them. Many people have come forward and said that they and all their friends don't live by those old rules, and somehow conclude that neither does the rest of the world. Those in the "vanguard" may think that because of what *they've* seen, the "job" is done. It's not. No one said it would be easy. -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/25/84)
> Reread what I've said > about why complaining that "men also have it bad, so don't put all the blame > on us" is a real live evasion of the first order and get back to me. Ok, I'll address your point. Let's look at your perception of women as victims in an oppressor/victim relationship from two perspectives. Political perspective: In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following conditions must hold: (1) The group is a minority. (2) The group does not have voting rights. Since women are a VOTING MAJORITY in this country, you're comparison of their situation to that of Blacks in the 1950's is simply bogus. As a VOTING MAJORITY, they have MORE say in their situation than anyone else. (Notice where the strongest opposition to the ERA is coming from.) Emotional perspective: You have to deal with societal norms in certain situations (e.g., work). Not much you can do about this, short of becoming a hermit. Still, you choose who to socialize with, who to develop relationships with, etc. Superficial involvements may be largely forced on you, but deeper ones are by choice. You accuse me of having inaccurate perceptions because I surround myself with "forward-thinking" people. But don't you see -- anyone can do what I've done. I create my own environment. So can you. So can any woman. (And I know many who have.) There are enough people out there, enough possibilities, that you can create whatever environment you like. So, from both perspectives, women are essentially free. How they use that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like "oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term. Finally, I consider the traditional roles a losing proposition, at best, from either end, not a black/white, winner/loser situation. Men have it better in some respects, women in others, but overall, both lose out. I didn't reject the game for ethical reasons (what you would call "returning the extra bottle of milk"), but for practical reasons (my own happiness). -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
amg@pyuxn.UUCP (Alan M. Gross) (07/26/84)
>(Notice where the strongest opposition to the ERA is coming from.)
The strongest opposition to the ERA (of course, we all know that 70%
of the people in this country support it) comes from the Morman and
Roman Catholic churches. Both have exclusively male hierarchies. I'm
not a member of either, but I've heard from members that these
organizations put a lot of time, energy, and money into the defeat of
the ERA.
--
Alan M. Gross
{ariel,burl,clyde,floyd,
gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amgsunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (07/26/84)
If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
What vote options do women have to choose from? A non-war platform?
A non-sexist one? One female veep? For convenience?
The old-boys-school is far too closed to have any *real* options.
We have a two party system, where both parties party together in Washington DC.
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny(Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa S. Chabot) (07/27/84)
Alan had some interesting points, but I've got to question a couple of them: Alan S. Driscoll = % % In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following % conditions must hold: % % (1) The group is a minority. % % (2) The group does not have voting rights. Nah. All ya gotta do is convince them that they're to be lead. All you have to do is play upon their upbringing that they they aren't self-reliant, that they aren't worth as much as the "superior" class, so that they either don't vote or they vote to support the "superior" class. It doesn't take being a minority to be oppressed, it takes being not outspoken...which can lead to isolation, you know. Alan speaks of good environments in his letter: % I create my own environment. So can you. So can any woman. % (And I know many who have.) There are enough people out there, enough % possibilities, that you can create whatever environment you like. Yes, I try to do this too. But then, sometimes I have to walk to the supermarket, or otherwise enter an environment over which I don't have a lot of control. I have to avoid places men could go -- I mean, guys, think about if there were known to be raunchy bars, whose patrons were mostly women, and if you accidentally wandered in and socialized, you could find yourself being sexually assaulted: bars are often rowdy and unfriendly to strangers, but as an exercise try walking around for a week while maintaining the attitude that bar potentially implies rape (and if this "rape" isn't spooky enough sounding for you then try thinking about having your pants pulled down and having everybody laugh at you bad and then molest you), and remember to feel scared about this, and then remember that WE *know* you're scared about this. ["WE" being the generic evil conspiracy of women, but, of course, not any women you know, since they are nice and sensitive and oblivious of the fact that when you go grocery shopping you have to quickly walk past the open door of a den of female sanctity (you live in a nice neighborhood, so it's probably not a rape-bar, but then, you don't want to risk finding out, do you? besides, they stare and whistle and call out nasty things when you walk by)]. OK. I'm not jumping up and down on Alan or anybody else, nor do I think I'm addressing all of Alan's issues or that I'm even talking about the intent of his letter or that I've caught his philosophy of life, put it in a killing jar, and pinned it out for display ... honest, ok? everybody believe me? Alan just reminded me of this outside world problem, and I just propose this as consciousness raising for those of us who've forgotten to include all of the outside world when thinking of equality. (I'm not mad, because I do it too, sometimes) Maybe it will be enlightening to some who can't figure out why their women friends get purple in the face and silent when someone is trying to tell them about how good things are now. Before I broke down and returned to school to gradiate, I programmed for a hospital, and one time there was interior construction going on in our area, and the women were stared at and whistled at and comments were made...we felt uncomfortable, but had to work up the nerve to complain, because, well, we were independent, adult, women and shouldn't be bothered with the rude remarks of construction workers (who are expected to make such remarks--sheesh! what an awful life), you know, equality means we have to take care of ourselves? Talking together, we eventually decided to complain, action was taken, and thereafter the workers only stared at us sullenly. (great. now we get repressed hostility.) Things are good. I take care of myself, I've got a technical job, I can carry on serious discussions on issues with men and we can listen to each other and we have topics of mutual interest. But like Rich and Robert and Brad and others often stand up and shout, us folk don't comprise the whole western world. But you are appreciated. L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/28/84)
> In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following > conditions must hold: > (1) The group is a minority. > (2) The group does not have voting rights. > Since women are a VOTING MAJORITY in this country, you're comparison of > their situation to that of Blacks in the 1950's is simply bogus. As a > VOTING MAJORITY, they have MORE say in their situation than anyone else. > (Notice where the strongest opposition to the ERA is coming from.) You seem to be expending a lot of energy to show examples of why women are not oppressed. You also have what I would consider a rather naive view of the nature of democracy in general and this country in particular. I'll elaborate further below. > You accuse me of having inaccurate perceptions because I surround myself > with "forward-thinking" people. But don't you see -- anyone can do what > I've done. I create my own environment. So can you. So can any woman. > (And I know many who have.) There are enough people out there, enough > possibilities, that you can create whatever environment you like. > So, from both perspectives, women are essentially free. How they use > that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like > "oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack > of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to > accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term. By those definitions, everybody is free. Even people in Communist or other totalitarian countries, people in prison. Able to create their own environment and associate with whomever they choose. You may choose the term "ignorance" to describe those who do choose not to choose for themselves, and it is apt. But some people in this world are trapped by their ignorance, and very few people in this world have the strength/stamina/intellect/will to escape from such ignorance. In an sanitized isolated environment it might seem easy, but, face it, *you've* never had to do it; you were fortunate to have been raised and educated with some degree of independent thinking. Try learning *that* if the status quo is all you know. -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/28/84)
>> So, from both perspectives, women are essentially free. How they use >> that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like >> "oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack >> of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to >> accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term. > By those definitions, everybody is free. Even people in Communist or other > totalitarian countries, people in prison. Able to create their own > environment and associate with whomever they choose. I discussed both political freedom and emotional freedom. I discussed them separately, because I think it's a great mistake to confuse them. Despite my efforts, you insist on doing just that. Once again, let's take them *one* at a time. Women, *as a group*, are politically free in this country, since they comprise a voting majority in a democracy. Women, *as individuals*, are emotionally free, since they (like everyone else) are responsible for their relationships. As for people in totalitarian countries or prisoners, again, I'll deal with the two forms of freedom separately. Politically, they obviously aren't free. (My argument about women is irrelevant, since they're not in a democratic situation.) Emotionally, they are free, simply because *everyone* is. You hear people denying responsibility for their relationships all the time. (Our culture teachs men and women to wait for the right person, rather than becoming the right person.) A little while ago, there was a discussion about the "lack of single, intelligent women." What bull! If these guys were stranded on an island, then I'd agree they had lost their emotional freedom. If they were stranded, though, they had access to the net, so why not pop off an article to net.rescue.me? :-) In future discussions, Rich, please be careful to avoid this confusion. Women certainly haven't achieved political equality in this country, but it is dishonest to carry that over into *personal* relationships. I can blame my political situation on someone else. Blaming relationships on someone else (or giving credit) is just a display of ignorance. In the *personal* realm, we are responsible for ourselves. Period. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (07/28/84)
-- >> If voting could change anything, it would be illegal. >> What vote options do women have to choose from? A non-war platform? >> A non-sexist one? One female veep? For convenience? >> The old-boys-school is far too closed to have any *real* options. >> We have a two party system, where both parties party together in >> Washington DC. >> Sunny Kirsten True! Here in America we have the inalienable right to ineffectual protest. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 28 Jul 84 [10 Thermidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (08/01/84)
] From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) ] & ... ] & barrier to equality: the fact that many women are forced to live in ] & fear of male aggression. Just ask any woman who has spent much time ] & ... ] & We, as men, are the only ones who can change this; not just by avoiding ] ] And the women sit back passively, avoiding fearsome things while the big ] strong men in shining armour fix the world?... The above recomendation ] would still lead to a man's world, though it would be nicer to women. ] ...What is called for is BOTH men and women to work together, the only ] reasonable choice. ...Isn't equality (including that of responsibility) ] the main idea? -- Brian Peterson brianp@shark.UUCP I don't think I'm guilty of such awful self-contradiction, Brian. If you have been following my postings (does anyone? :-)) you'd know that I firmly believe that cooperation between the sexes is the only road to equality of the sexes. Your article seems to say that women are equally responsible as men for eliminating male aggression against women. I doubt that you meant that. And if you read my article again, closely, you'll see that my message is simply: ``Men, take responsibility for getting the message across to other men: male aggression against women is *wrong*.'' At no point did I suggest passivity on the part of women. (I *like* assertive women! :-) ) At no point did I say that women should not actively oppose male aggression; they certainly should. But the excesses of the male role must be addressed directly by males. Only after sexist men have cleaned up their acts and treat women with respect can they work with women for equality. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall P.S. Anyone who takes my last sentence to imply that all men are sexist should be banned to an eternity of net.flames. 1/2 :-)
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (08/02/84)
>> Lisa Chabot has eloquently stated what is probably the most serious >> barrier to equality: the fact that many women are forced to live in >> fear of male aggression. Just ask any woman who has spent much time >> in public places--catcalls, propositions, threats, and even assaults >> can be pretty much routine. >> Absolutely!! Unfortunately women aren't the only ones subjected to aggressive behaviour. I steer clear of bars where bikers hang out after the very bad experience of a friend of mine. >> >> We, as men, are the only ones who can change this; not just by avoiding >> such behavior ourselves (as I'm sure that many of us in this enlightened >> group have never engaged in it), but by confronting it when we see other >> men doing it. >> We should confront this sort of behaviour irregardless of who is being victimised. Regards, -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje P.S. Send Flames, I love mail.
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (08/03/84)
>> In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following >> conditions must hold: >> >> (1) The group is a minority. >> >> (2) The group does not have voting rights. > This is simply nonsense. I stand by my statement, if I may remind you of the context it was made in, and ellaborate a bit on what I meant. Rich compared the situation of women to that of Blacks. I disagree with that comparison, because there is a fundamental difference in the situation of these two groups in this country -- Blacks are a minority in numbers, while women are a minority only in name. Women have the sheer numbers necessary to change their situation. What they need is awareness and organization. Of course, they're discouraged from using their power, but, AS A GROUP, they are free to ignore that discouragement. AS A GROUP, they can change their situation WITH OR WITHOUT the help of men. Blacks don't have the numbers, therefore the power, that women do. No amount of awareness and organization, ALONE, is enough to change their situation. They must change the attitudes of OTHERS, a much harder task. So I disagree with the comparison. This doesn't mean I think any individual woman has the power to change things, or that I "blame" (your word) any woman for her situation. Please don't read more into my statements that I intended. My point concerns potential power, not "effective" power, and groups, not individuals. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories