welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (04/07/84)
I am really bemused and surprised by an article by Shava Nerad on "Re: Feminism and a double standard(?)." To quote the example given Example: A male engineer explains software tool source to me. If I make a point to tilt my head and smile while I am listening to a [possibly boring or reluctant] technical explication of a piece of code, it shows my interest. It gives the man a better feeling about having to go over the same material with another person another time. This is true whether or not the man is a chauvinist. The behavior is characteristically "woman approving of man." To be interested in what a colleague you are working with is doing and to act that way is not "woman approving of man." To act interested if you are not is phony. This holds for all interpersonal relationships regardless of the sexes involved. I consider it no more than another means of communication, which I happen to be a skilled enough communicator to use safely and effectively, much as an eloquent speaker uses his language. Some women consider this flirting, since I am consciously manipulating this man by being a woman and acting in a manner with which men are taught to be very pleased when treated to such attention. If I did it unconsciously, then it would probably be "OK." The problem with acting differently than you feel is that you will eventually be found out to be a phony. Then you will become the manipulated person as opposed to the the manipulator. But being interested in your colleagues work, having respect for their abilities, and enjoying them a people has long been part of the work environment. It seems like a shame that some women find it necessary to put on an act. There is a difference between this behavior, and behavior where a woman consciously/accidently leaves a few extra buttons undone on her dress for the boss, or takes a client to dinner in her hotel room while dressed in an evening gown. The distinction lies in would (s)he behave this way with a member of the same sex. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (04/10/84)
>
I have to agree with Larry; faking interest is being phony no matter
what the purpose is. This is true whether sexual undertones exist
(i.e. flirtation) or not.
Various postings have made a claim that sounds suspiciously like
`the ends justify the means'. I find this abhorrent, but such
scheming is all too often `the rules of the game'. It depresses
me that women have to adopt some of the more dishonorable
characteristics of men in order to `succeed in a man's world'.
Or do they? I guess I was just dreaming when I once thought that
equality meant an intermingling and an opening up of sex roles,
rather than just the ability of women to adopt the male sex roles
they desire. And I thought it meant giving up the unfair advantages
built into the traditional roles of either sex as well as shedding
their restrictions.
It is probably more pragmatic to exploit a male chauvinist's biases
(thereby reinforcing them) than to attempt to `educate' him or simply to
ignore the biases, but in light of the amorality implied by this
exploitation any argument for `equality' is hollow. You can't achieve
moral objectives--and I claim equality is one--through amoral means.
In addition, the implications of calculated deception for ones own
psychological well-being and the well-being of society in general
are insidious and profound (but this is another issue entirely).
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhallnerad@closus.DEC (04/10/84)
!libation... (Happy birthday, Skia!)
Larry Welsch writes:
"To be interested in what a colleague you are working with is doing and to act
that way [looking interested, smiling even if bored] is not "woman approving
of man." To act interested if you are not is phony. This holds for all
interpersonal relationships regardless of the sexes involved.
...
"The problem with acting differently than you feel is that you will eventually
be found out as a phony. Then you will become the manipulated person as
opposed to the manipulator."
I don't know about the rest of the people on the net, but I do not consider
being pleasant to people in the best way I know how to be "phony." I consider
myself to be in good touch with my own feelings, but also well enough adjusted
to realize that my true emotions--whether they be joy, anger, or boredom--are
not usually appropriate to a business context.
If I come in to work in the morning feeling like my world is falling apart,
and show that to every individual in the office, I am not being phony, but I
AM being unprofessional. It is not in the realm of business interactions with
people who are not also my friends for me to impinge upon their mood and thier
work with details from my personal life. You can not work with your heart on
your sleeve.
If I am bored, but I need to go and get information from someone who I know is
a dull presenter of information, I am not about to walk in and say (in words
or actions) "You bore me to tears, and I don't really want to talk to you, but
you have some stuff I have to pick up on for my Thursday meeting. Get it out,
and make it quick." I am going to be pleasant, encourage him to communicate
more effectively by asking questions at relevant points, and leave us both
with a feeling that something useful has been accomplished.
Likewise (and this saddens me more) if something happens with which I am
overjoyed, I can not dance down the hallways, jumping up and down and hugging
people who I know would care about the good news, whether or not they are
people with which I would feel free to act that way out of the office.
I behave in SIMILAR manner with the women here. I make an effort to be
consistantly pleasant, giving positive feedback, and conserving strong
emotional responses for the times when they will have the most effect. I use
the cues of women-women cultural contexts in my interaction with women. I use
the cues of women-men with men, with a sprinkling of specific men-men just to
make points. This is not my only rule for interaction, though. Most people
in this office are part of a greater American/New England/Business/Intellectual
/High Technology cultural set. This cultural set governs the wide majority of
interaction, and is for the most part not sex specific. I was making the
point that I am willing, and consider myself a discriminating enough judge of
situations to use this skill responsibly, without exploiting people. (Remember
when the word "discriminating" could have positive reactions in people? It
really only means capable of distinguishing between things. "Criticism" has a
similar problem in common usage.)
Perhaps I am about to be branded a sexist, but I believe that treating all
persons as persons does not preclude treating them in consideration of their
sub-culture and its cues, whether that sub-culture is women's, men's, jewish,
moslem, christian, italian, urban, rural north, rural south... This does not
mean discriminating AGAINST OR FOR a person for their cultural orientation,
but only trying to effectively communicate with them in their own context.
We are all people, but we are NOT all the same. It is valuable to preserve
the richness of culture where it is not damaging. The question we really seem
to be running into is one that is common in the women's movement: Is it
possible to treat each individual without regard to that person's sex without
treating each person as a sexless individual?
Since neither men's nor women's culture is right for all people, can we excise
the harmful parts of each, and preserve them; or are we going to have to
impose a synthetic androgynous culture which denies cultural differences
between men and women?
If a question looks easy, you don't understand it.
Shava Nerad
Telematic Systems (@DEC Ed. Svcs.)
{decvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!closus!nerad