dmmartindale@watrose.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (12/23/83)
Generalizations, unfair though they may be to individuals, exist
because they sum up a piece of information that was, at least at one
time and at least to some person, USEFUL. Sophie may know very well
that some men are adept at subtlety, that some communicate well
non-verbally. Yet she still says "men are crummy at being subtle"
because she has learned that this is often enough true that she has
noticed this as a commom characteristic, and remembers it. Maybe it is
something she will find herself watching out for, and being careful
about, when getting to know someone new. Maybe she just remembers it
because the frustration of poor communication with someone was at one
time very important to her. It is simply part of her experience, which
will affect her interactions with men in the future. Sometimes it may
be a good thing, sometimes bad, but that's the way learning works.
Generalizations are thus not necessarily "bad" things; they become bad
only if you forget that they do not apply to all individuals. Or if
you take someone else's generalizations and adopt them as your own
without critically examining them to see if they are in fact true in
the world you inhabit.
Ok, (can-of-worm opener in hand) does anyone want to discuss
generalizations about what women (and, by symmetry, men) are like?
REMEMBERING ALWAYS THAT THEY DON'T APPLY TO EVERYONE IN THE GROUP, what
things have you observed about women in general or men in general.
(Things that YOU observed, not things that your parents told you or
that "everyone knows") Why do you believe that they are true? How
often are they not true? I realize this is potentially touchy stuff,
but if people can consider what they say carefully and avoid baiting
each other, it could be very interesting.
Sophie's "men are crummy at being subtle" is a good example. She
believes it's a good generalization - that it is true of many men. I
believe that women can also be unsubtle and insensitive, but maybe
women in general are better at communicating. I've heard this before,
and my experience would support it somewhat, but I tend to try harder
to communicate well with a woman than with a man. And the
highest-quality communication that I've experienced, the "most
noise-free channel", was with men. So I don't really believe it. Do
you? Why?
Another one: Sometimes I get the impression that women are looking for
a man who will "take care of them". More generally, someone who is
"stronger" than they, someone who they can "look up to". This does
seem to explain why some women get involved with the men that they do,
and why their relationships proceed the way that they do. (Women who
really want to considered equal to men still often seem to end up in
relationships where the man clearly dominates. Why?) This is very
frustrating at times, since I don't WANT to be looked up to - I want to
be looked across at. Is there a better explanation for this? Am I
imagining it entirely? Does "equal" mean something different to me
than it does to these women?
Dave Martindale
{ihnp4,allegra,decvax}!watmath!dmmartindalesaquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/03/84)
Hum, yes, generalisations are dangerous in that they do tend to be self-fulfilling. I do believe that the best way for "bad" generalisations to change is for the people who the generalisations are about to change. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Many generalisations are about people who do not have much power to change them. Sexist and racist remarks such as "women/blacks are stupid" probably have a basis of truth, but one should never forget the root of that truth, that those people started out without some of the advantages of the group they are being compared with, and unless they are given those advantages, by those who have the power to do so, there is not really any way they will be able to change, and it is pointless to expect them to. I think this is the basis of the "affirmative action" programs being implemented. Even though the line is fine between the two kinds, there are generalisations that can be changed by the people they are about, and I think these are worth discussing as we might get some insight about ourselves in doing so. I think all the examples mentioned in previous messages are of that kind. "Women are more sensitive then men", "men are crummy at being subtle", "women like men who will take care of them", "women lead me on" and more generally almost all topics which deal with interpersonal relationships rather than "business" or "work" relationships are good topics because the time is ripe (I believe) for attitutes to change in those matters. I think there were times when it was "safer" for women to play "hard to get" and not be too "agressive" and there are many places in the world where it is still safer to comply with those old values, but I think that now, in northern north america (not southern apparently) we can try to question those values without too much risk. The fear is still lurking in my mind that some crazy guy will read anything I say as an indication that I am "loose" and an invitation to rape. I am also a bit worried about the gossipy small-town mentality which prevails around me, and the fact that a label about my sexuality will become attached to me (I have found out that there is such a thing, as I was told by a friend of mine that I was "sexually agressive", whatever that means.. something about the way I sit and the clothes I wear, and the way I "behave" with men), but I do hope that these fears are more a reflection of my big-city, men-distrusting paranoid attitude about life than about the "real" world out there. In any case these are risks I am willing to take, and I do wish there were more of us taking them. Now I'd like to continue the discussion on the "generalisations" that were proposed; first about communication between the sexes. When emotions are not involved, I don't think there is any difference between the sexes, but simply between people. When emotions come in, things are different, but I still find it hard to make comparisons, as the emotions I have tried to convey to my female friends are usually different from the ones being communicated to my male friends. I do find in general that, borrowing Dave's expression, my channels have been more "noise-free" with women than with men, but then again, I have heard very ugly stories from my women friends about some of their relationships with other women, so maybe I have been lucky so far. I do tend to be very selective in my choice of women friends with the result that I have usually one or two very close friends and many aquaintances. About whether women like men who will "take care of them", I have noticed that about a few of my couple friends, and I have heard it from many women that they like men who make them "feel small" and who are "real" men (no joke!) and can "protect" them. I have never been in a relationship where I've been "protected" as I hate to be protected against my will, especially if there is no danger to protect me from. I do like to be walked home, because I feel there is a real danger and I feel that I am safer if I am walking with a man, than if I am alone and I think that a man alone is safer than a woman alone, so I have no qualms asking a man to walk me home and letting him walk home alone. But real danger aside, I have noticed the opposite of what Dave described; I've had men try to "protect" me when I didn't need it and I've always wondered if they were doing it because they liked playing that role or because they thought there was a big demand for such a thing. I also noticed that some men believe that if I am a "liberated" woman who doesn't need round-the-clock protection, then I don't EVER need ANY protection even when I would like some (such as being walked home). I have also noticed that these are the same people who don't believe in opening doors to women and helping them when their arms are full, because they are afraid to be labelled MCP's. I think it is terribly silly, and that protection, or help should be offered to anybody who needs it, no matter what their sex, age, by whoever can offer it. I think it is simply a matter of common curteousness, but other people seem to disagree, I wonder why. Coming back to being "protected", I too would like to know why some women like to feel that way. I really wonder if it is a feeling that can be rationalised at all. As I am not a candidate "protect-ed" I tend to get into relationships with men who are not "protecters", and I noticed also that some of these men do like to be "protected" more than I like it, and seem to look up to me more than I look up to them; so once again, we are not seeing eye-to-eye. This makes me wonder if it is an inherent property of relationships that one person is the "strong", "protective" one, or is it simply that we assume that all relation- ships must be based on such inequalities, and by changing male-female roles, we simply just exchange them without rethinking their basis. From all the lesbian prose (and poetry) I have been reading, I got the impression that in many of those relationships, "roles" have been rethought and redefined and that their relationships are more equalitarian. I just wonder if this is another one of those "grass is greener" remarks, or whether those relationships ARE really different. Does anybody out there know?