trb (04/09/83)
First, Sarah Groves, thanks for a coherent article with just takes issue with my point of view. In netnews, I'm used to posting my opinion and then getting shot at if someone disagrees. You mention that I may be misunderstanding the purpose of the women's movement and non-sexism. The idea is not to level the differences between the sexes, but to eliminate differences in pay or opportunities which exist solely on the basis of sex. That might be true in an ideal sense, but practically, I've gotten other very real impressions from various corners of the women's movement. If you don't want to see my description of the stereotypes I perceive then skip to the next paragraph, you have been warned. I have seen a significant number of women who have no concern for men, they think that women are all the world needs, their comrades have been screwed by men long enough, they have no interest in men sexually or otherwise, they're happy and proud. Doesn't make me feel too comfy but it's better than women who want to be better than men, to turn the tables and teach them a lesson. These people actually exist in (I imagine) large numbers. I have seen them in person, and I have seen them interviewed in the mass media. Advertisements in women's magazines often portray successful women as being superior to men. In a broad sense, I either deal with a woman either in a close personal relationship or in a more distant acquaintance relationship. If I have a close relationship then I want to be able to communicate freely, talk, love, kick, scream, fondle, share. It couldn't possibly be of any possible benefit to me to disrespect this person and I don't see how some "movement" could help our relationship. The other, acquaintance woman should be treated exactly the same as I'd treat a man, with the one exception that I might want to pursue the first type of relationship with a woman if I'm so inclined. That does make a bit of a difference, but I don't want a "movement" exerting pressure. I like some men and dislike others. Same with women. What do you want? Even the most upstanding "movement" isn't without its grave problems. We all have some view of religious cults. There are, on the other hand (on the same hand?) religious groups which are generally respected in our society. These groups are thought to be beneficial and are well regarded but they often (always) have a dark side, showing (or hiding) disrespect for other religious groups and enforcing seemingly ad hoc limitations on its members in the name of morality and God. The members do what they want anyway. Really vile, and I say that even as I am marginally involved with such an organization, in my case a Chasidic (quite devout) Jewish one. This business about movements applies to feminism as well as to Judaism. Some leader has some good idea, and lots of people follow, and the ideas get distorted into various (sometimes ugly) forms depending on the needs (sometimes not healthy) of the distorters. It just rubs me the wrong way. People often talk about subtle discrimination against women in the workplace, but I think that subtle discrimination applies to most everybody. I'm kinda scruffy looking and I might be discriminated against because of it. You might argue that I can change my scruffy looks but you can't change your being a woman. Why should I have to change my scruffy looks if it doesn't hurt the way I perform? I've said it before, I think that most of these movements, most of these solutions paint with too broad a brush, because the real answers are too tough. Treating all people with respect is too hard. Instead, it is legislated that companies have AA/EEO programs where we have to grin and bear it when we're upset at a woman at work because blowing up might be construed as being discriminatory. What a masquerade. I agree with Sarah that there is subtle discrimination and that it should be dealt with, but I don't believe it's a woman's problem, everyone has problems with being treated unfairly. When one group's problems get extra attention, the rest of us feel neglected, and it just polarizes people and generates friction. Bad news. Sarah suggests that there aren't as many "hot women hackers" because of subtle discrimination in society. While that's possible, it's just as possible that women as a group aren't interested in hacking, just the same as I as a group was not interested in being a doctor or an accountant or a candlestick maker (yet). I wonder, how important are "role models?" I always hear about them, but I don't know that they're that important, especially I don't know how important it is to have male role models for males and female role models for females. I would think that if I needed a role model that a good one of either sex would be enough. If I want to be a good hacker then find me a hacker role model. If I want to be a good father then find me a father role model. I don't see why the hacker would have to be of a particular sex. I didn't have a hacker role model growing up, or an engineering role model. As a matter of fact, as I recall, most of my teachers (through high school) were women. Math and science teachers are certainly the role models for engineering and science types. I was (once) gonna be a chemical engineer, and my high school chem teacher was a woman. Sarah gave me the impression that she had experiences with professors who couldn't deal properly with women. I'd agree there, but I'd think that role models are more important in the earlier years. A person would be pretty well set by college age, and would not be dissuaded by some idiot professor. Sarah ends with this: The women's movement is necessary because, although a woman may be free to choose, it is still an uphill battle to accomplish her goals. If women want a movement, then I guess it's necessary. I don't think that a woman's problems are going to be best dealt with by a movement. We all have uphill battles, I think it would be naive to want to get rid of them. What fun would life be? Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
glaser (04/10/83)
I am in essential agreement with Sarah I have seen a significant number of women who have no concern for men, they think that women are all the world needs, their comrades have been screwed by men long enough, they have no interest in men sexually or otherwise, they're happy and proud. Doesn't make me feel too comfy but it's better than women who want to be better than men, to turn the tables and teach them a lesson. These people actually exist in (I imagine) large numbers. I have seen them in person, and I have seen them interviewed in the mass media. Advertisements in women's magazines often portray successful women as being superior to men.
glaser (04/10/83)
I am in essential agreement with Sarah Groves' thoughtful comments.
Andy's response (in part) is that
I have
seen a significant number of women who have no concern for men, they
think that women are all the world needs, their comrades have been
screwed by men long enough, they have no interest in men sexually or
otherwise, they're happy and proud. Doesn't make me feel too comfy but
it's better than women who want to be better than men, to turn the
tables and teach them a lesson. These people actually exist in (I
imagine) large numbers. I have seen them in person, and I have seen
them interviewed in the mass media. Advertisements in women's magazines
often portray successful women as being superior to men.
What Andy says can not be disputed per se, as nobody can tell Andy
what he has or has not seen. I only know that what he describes runs
counter to my experience, and I have just spent the past 4 years on a
college campus (Yale) which supposedly has a pretty hefty share of
radical feminism. Sure, there is the Women's Studies Professor who
will say in class that "all heterosexual sex is rape," which is no less
offensive than if she had said "all homosexual sex is immoral."
However, I have found that people such as this woman (and the people to
whom Andy refers) are highly visible and vocal but represent a very small
minority within the general feminist "community." In this regard, Andy,
you might want to keep in mind your own point that
Even the most upstanding "movement" isn't without its grave problems.
This business about movements applies to feminism as well as to
Judaism. Some leader has some good idea, and lots of people follow,
and the ideas get distorted into various (sometimes ugly) forms
depending on the needs (sometimes not healthy) of the distorters.
If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense to criticize the
people who distort the given cause, but this is no reason to dispute
the basic goals of feminism -- equal opportunity under the law, equal
access to resources (e.g., Title IX), and the like. But then Andy
raises what sounds like a criticism of movements in general:
In a broad sense, I either deal with a woman either in a close personal
relationship or in a more distant acquaintance relationship. If I have
a close relationship then I want to be able to communicate freely,
talk, love, kick, scream, fondle, share. It couldn't possibly be of
any possible benefit to me to disrespect this person and I don't see
how some "movement" could help our relationship.
What about men who beat their wives? Doesn't society (perhaps through
a movement of some type), have the responsibility to prevent this sort
of behavior? Just because you would never do this, Andy, doesn't stop
it from happening elsewhere. I know many feminists (women & men) who are
active volunteers in the local battered women's shelter, and who view their
volunteerism as a manefestation of their feminism. Are they intruding
unfairly in people's lives?
The other,
acquaintance woman should be treated exactly the same as I'd treat a
man, with the one exception that I might want to pursue the first type
of relationship with a woman if I'm so inclined. That does make a bit
of a difference, but I don't want a "movement" exerting pressure. I
like some men and dislike others. Same with women. What do you want?
Feminism doesn't say you have to like all women. It would say you can't
fire a women if she won't sleep with you. It would say that you can't
pay a women less than a man for a comparable job. You might say that
women can do this to men as easily as men can do it to women, but the
imbalance of economic (and political) power in this country makes this
possibility unlikely. The oft-quoted 59 cents figure (women earn $.59
for every $1.00 earned by men) is a stark depiction of this inequality
of power. Moreover, in the 2 years since Reagan took over, this gap
has further widened (I think the 1982 figure was something like $.55).
Then, Andy, you ask about other discrimination:
People often talk about subtle discrimination against women in the
workplace, but I think that subtle discrimination applies to most
everybody. I'm kinda scruffy looking and I might be discriminated
against because of it. You might argue that I can change my scruffy
looks but you can't change your being a woman. Why should I have to
change my scruffy looks if it doesn't hurt the way I perform?
Two points: Feminists have keenly pointed out the relation in our
society between sexism and reliance on superficial appearance
(particularly female beauty). This is not to say that sexism explains
all forms of discrimination, but I think it true that a less sexist
society would discriminate less on the basis of appearance than ours
does.
Also, one kind of discrimination does not excuse other kinds. Perhaps
you should start a "scruffy-looking people's support group" (I seem to
recall that short people started short people's groups shortly after
Randy Neuman's "Short People" came out [Neuman was trying to make a
statement against discrimination -- ah well]). I'm kidding about the
support groups, of course, but you get the point. I hope Andy was
kidding when he closed by saying that
We all have uphill battles, I think it would be naive to want to get
rid of them. What fun would life be?
Life for a white male (which I am) is enough of a struggle. Should we
really compound this by tolerating discrimination on the basis of
gender (or race, or scruffiness,)? I think not. What do you think, Andy?
Rob Glaser
(decvax!yale-comix!glaser)
(glaser@Yale)trb (04/10/83)
I see nothing much in yale-com!glaser's responses for me to disagree with. He mentions that the radical feminists are highly visible and vocal but only represent a small part of the feminist community. I'd agree, but these vocal people are the representatives who present the image of the feminist movement. Most of female America gets its information from guests on the Phil Donahue show. People on these shows go for broke to make their point because their resources are limited, they get their time slice and that's it. Same as me posting netnews, I can't spend my whole life composing a wonderfully explicit picture, because you wouldn't even read it. Problem is, the squeaky wheel gets greased and the sheep in the audience get some impression. When I think of the feminist movement I think of the media image. Yea, I talked about "movements" and how I don't have a good feeling about them and on the other hand, they do have their purposes. It's a grey question and I can't really generalize about them. I can't argue with equal opportunity under the law etc. But to call that "feminism" is ugly. Feminism implies "something for women." Equality for women is just an asinine idea. If equality is what you want then you should want it for everyone. Else to call it equality is a lie. Glaser asks: What about men who beat their wives? Doesn't society (perhaps through a movement of some type), have the responsibility to prevent this sort of behavior? What does that have to do with feminism? What about any people who inflict pain on other people? Glaser suggests that I start a "srcuffy-looking people's support group." Feh! Support groups are not the answer to the world's problems. You gotta be kidding if you think that I'd find it beneficial to sit weekly with a group of scruffy-looking people kvetching while someone with a pad and pen takes notes and nods. (Yes, support groups are fine for people who need support. But every problem isn't rooted in a need for support.) I closed my other note with We all have uphill battles, I think it would be naive to want to get rid of them. What fun would life be? It was pretty stupid of me to say that, it belittles another person's problems, but I'm just trying to say that I get the impression that people sometimes think that the grass is greener on the other side and if only this or that thing was different then their lives would work. I have talked with women (today in fact) whom one would consider modern. who have had a great deal of pain in their relationships with men. Successful relationships are so hard, so rare. I often hear that it's the fault of the insensitive boorish men (in general) that a woman might not be able to find a happy relationship. Just to hear a woman talk about men as a class is pretty disturbing. I don't enjoy being pigeonholed and I don't know anyone who does. I haven't seen the reason for me to support feminism. I never hear about masculinism. I don't want to hear about it either. There's too many isms already. Sorry I make sweeping generalizations, but I'm torn by my skills as a writer, my level of incoherence and confusion, laziness, etc. I just hope you get the picture I'm trying to portray. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
guy (04/11/83)
I can't argue with equal opportunity under the law etc. But to call
that "feminism" is ugly. Feminism implies "something for women."
Equality for women is just an asinine idea. If equality is what you
want then you should want it for everyone. Else to call it equality is
a lie.
Stating the goal as "equality for women", instead of "equality for everyone",
is valid because this equality can be achieved only by taking away some of
the power men have. It's not a matter of raising both men and women up, it's
a matter of raising the power women have over their lives to the same level
as the power that men have over their lives. This will, necessarily, reduce
the power men have over other people's lives.
You replied to Glaser, who asked:
What about men who beat their wives? Doesn't society (perhaps
through a movement of some type), have the responsibility to
prevent this sort of behavior?
saying:
What does that have to do with feminism? What about any people who
inflict pain on other people?
Domestic violence is not just a case of "people inflicting pain on other
people." One of the causes of domestic violence is the attitude that it's
"all right" to beat your wife because she's a woman and that's what it takes
to keep her in line. This attitude is quite prevalent in the folklore of
many societies, including ours. It is probably at least in part responsible
for the New Bedford gang-rape incident. It is LONG past time for this attitude
to be done away with.
You also say:
Support groups are not the answer to the world's problems.
You gotta be kidding if you think that I'd find it
beneficial to sit weekly with a group of scruffy-looking people
kvetching while someone with a pad and pen takes notes and nods.
Is that all a women's support group is?
And:
I have talked with women (today in fact) whom one would consider
modern. who have had a great deal of pain in their relationships
with men. Successful relationships are so hard, so rare. I often
hear that it's the fault of the insensitive boorish men (in general)
that a woman might not be able to find a happy relationship.
In a lot of cases, it IS the fault of the attitude of men in this society
that women can't have happy relationships with them; in those cases, I can't
say that I don't somewhat sympathize with women who decide they aren't
interested in getting involved with men. Furthermore, there is a lot more
to feminism than dealing with the problems with personal relationships between
men and women. Those problems, and the other ways in which women are hurt
by our society, are political problems due to the fact that women simply have
less control over their lives than men.
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!guypn (04/11/83)
"I often hear that it's the fault of the insensitive boorish men (in general) that a woman might not be able to find a happy relationship." I was going to say something nasty about people who use generalizations like that, but I remembered the discussions I had with a friend of mine who has a lot of credibility with me. The husband of her friend was content to sit at home all the time and the only times they ever went out was when she arranged it. Essentially their social life was her responsibility. This bothered her at first, but she finally accepted it, having, I suppose, met men who were much worse. There were also problems with him taking her for granted, which were worked out, but again she had a disproportional share of the work. I read somewhere that women are what holds society together and I would agree that the women I know spend more time being social than the men I know. Another friend likes to invite people over for dinner while her boyfriend likes to work on his home computer. She complains she has to compete with the machine for his attention. Has anyone else seen the things I have seen? Do you think it's important?
mjs (04/11/83)
I just have a quick observation before the caffiene in my coffee
reaches my brain. If all of the people who feel the need to shoot Andy
down because he has been duped by the media representation of
"feminism" would spend their energy doing something about it (and
suggesting to the rest of us what we can do about it), I feel sure that
there'd be no problem in a very short time. Enough said??
By the way, how do the rest of you selectively ignore the anti-woman
training you've received for the first N (formative) years of your
lives? If you have a recipe, please share it!!
<flame off>
Martin Shannon, Jr.
Phone: (201) 582-3199
Internet: mjs@mhb5b.uucp
UUCP: {allegra,rabbit,alice,mhb5b,mhb5c}!mjsdonath (04/17/83)
Wife beating goes a lot deeper than economic dependency. There are a lot of women who are badly beaten by men who depend on them economically. There are very fundamental differences in the perogatives men and women feel they have in terms of their treatment of each other. I have worked in a battered-women's shelter, and have spoken to many of the men who wanted reconciliaton with their wives/girlfriends, and it was a very rare case that had the slightest notion of having done anything wrong. Judith (yale-comix)