sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) (03/01/91)
I am crossposting this to soc.men, soc.women, and soc.feminism because I think the material herein has bearing on _all_ these groups. People who wish to followup, please edit the material accordingly and limit the crossposting. I don't do such crosspostings lightly, but only when I feel that the people in those groups have an interest. [Followups have been set to soc.feminism. Please don't crosspost your followups. -- AMBAR] ishizaki@hplred.HP.COM (Audrey Ishizaki) writes: >What I hear Mark S. saying that if employers are forced to give AA >opportunities to women and minorities, these women and minorities should >also be forced to make some social changes (accept their responsibilities). >E.g. if women expect AA opportunities in employment, then these women >should also be forced to ask men out on dates (no longer be passive). That's my first objection, Audrey. "women and minorities" is an inexact, and IMO INAPPROPRIATE term. Just as I'm crossposting this to several groups, AA seeks to apply the same solutions to several different problems. The injustices that have occurred to the Native American and to the black people and what should be done to compensate and help them should not be cheapened by bringing women's concerns and the welfare of people who just arrived in this country who are therefore "minorities" into the same picture. This is the same sort of intellectual dishonesty that allows Jesse Helms to attach "kiddy porn" legislation onto educational bills. While these issues all have similarities, they _are_ different and should be considered in that light. Now, with respect to _women_ and _only_ women and AA, let me say that women are different than the other named cases in the sense that they can, and do, marry into wealth. Since the social and legal constraints forcing men to make more are separate from AA, it makes sense that AA is not going to have much effect on these, no? And therein lies the problem: Since feminism could have been something to free men and women from the constraints and conflict of gender roles, it's a shame that it only turned out to improve women's conditions in some ways while causing stress in our society as men are forced between old-gender roles and modern considerations. AA is _never_ ever ever EVER! going to result in women having equality in the workplace as long as men are expected by other pressures to be superior. What AA can and does do, however, is "encourage" more women in the workplace giving them an edge while men are simply trying to survive. If a woman wants a man to make more than her, he now has to work harder than before women's liberation "freed us" for less money. It's ironic that women are hurt indirectly as well when they complain that the men they meet are either "workaholics" or not "self-confident" enough. AA causes men and women to not be happy to make at least average. Now everyone has to make "more than average" to survive. Of course, not everyone can make more than average, by definition, so men become slaves and women become more competitive for the remaining men at the top. No wonder all the foreigners I meet say Americans are so shallow! >I guess I think if "we" could force social changes on people, "we" wouldn't >need AA in the first place. Number 1: we shouldn't force social changes on people. If the people are not happy with the changes, then the changes will never last. Many good ideas have fallen because they didn't take this into account. If we are to have sexual equality or at least maximum sexual freedom, we have to realize that neither side should be a slave and anyone asking that is wrong. Feminism has succeeded on one side, but not on the other. (Nor should it alone, I guess) But I think feminism's best bet would be to actively support the growth of the men's rights movement. Only until men are free, can women ever say they are because we're both in it together. This reminds me of what happened last night (and many other nights) and the true tragedy of feminism and what it could have done if they had worked with men, rather than often against them. I was out at our local meat market, er, dance club :-) and an interesting (but hardly rare) phenomenon occurred. Almost _no one_ met or got laid. _I_ know what I was there for. (although now, it's gradually becoming more of a people watch exercise than anything else) And I _know_ what many, if not most of them were there for. But the only problem was that _no one_ was allowed to say it. It was like a dirty word. And even worse, no one was allowed to show in any way that was what was going on. It's sort of like the song "All the lonely people". Father MacKenzies were all around giving the sermons no one would hear, and Elanor Rigbys with their face from a jar. Everyone seeing the other as objects in a game. The game was that men had to make all the initiations (although some flirting was involved) while looking like they weren't initiating anything. Does this make sense yet? Oh, and any guy that goes through such game playing is obviously not worth talking to. Next guy. As far as I could tell, there were so many guys around, that women pretty much set the pace. "Battle scars", as Dave Eisen calls them from women acting like men seem improbable to me at least in this environment. If anything, the "traditional" route only produced lonely nights for most of the guys (and gals) and pickups for the most sleezy guys who can put on works of acting casual while controlling every nuance of the situation. Since men are considered so expendable, but no woman wants to date a guy who openly feels that way, everyone is miserable. It's ironic that women are suffering from their own elitism. That's ok, though, men have been suffering under their own for long before that. :-) In any case, I no longer play traditional games. "Flirting" to me is seen as all it is: friendliness. But I don't play games any more. I just can't get rid of the feeling of being sold out. >Consciousness-raising has worked on me. Some of the things I have read >(in this very forum!) have made me become aware of prejudices I/others >have held. I've even changed my mind about some issues, due to the >reasonable arguments I've read. And now I'm sure you have satisfactory (I hope!) relationships with men. A relationship of mutual respect and care for the other's feelings is essential for a healthy society. Right now, from what I've seen, experienced, and heard from various sources, we just don't have one. Continuing ever more squeezing of men (which is all feminism has left in terms of agenda) just seems to me to not be as constructive a goal as setting up men's rights. Especially considering the fact that people may just get plain sick of the "matriarchal" society and go back to being old-fashioned. If men had a stake in this, I'm sure feminists would get a lot more respect from us. But as it is, it's getting a little tiring always being put second. >That said, I don't yet see how Mark S. wants AA to be linked to other >social inequities. I can understand how he might wish for AA in custody >hearings. But how do you tie AA to women asking men out? Then again, >maybe I've misunderstood. Actually, AA in custody and divorce hearings would be a _great_ idea. At least in terms of allowing the man to sue for a new trial automatically if the judge can't demonstrate a good reason for his unequal decisions. But I think your example shows clearly why AA is a bad idea in terms of men/women in our society: It tries to legislate personal tastes. Forcing recruitment of women for industries that don't have many women or forcing children to live with a father they don't want to is just not a good idea. I'm not an absolute libertarian, but I think government should exist to protect individual rights and not force social agendas on people. -- "S&M Consciousness Raising" by: Mark Sobolewski sobleski@cs.psu.edu (814) 867-4367 Bitnet: sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu