bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") (06/26/91)
I have had this question for some time in my mind and I am bringing this out for open debate on this topic. It might seem, that these days to see Woman as head of a organisation or leading another bunch of women and men in the organisation is quite a common place. I would though like to know how many of these woman have successfully managed their career and their Family life ? I have come to know of lots of women have had either to give up one or another and they have always seemed to do this with some regret. I have also observed that those women who think they are the independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more cynical about Men. But again all these are general observations and personal experience. Another thing is why do women have to behave in a absolutely Positivly Woman (Traditional type Makeup, act Dumb et al) or the other side of them like Morden so called Libbers (Don't shave Legs, Dont use perfume kind) Why can't there be more of Natural woman who know that men know they need us as much as we need them and there is no need to act highty and mighty or even dumb (which they ar'n't) I mean spare the artificialities, do they actually need them?? Lastly Is it true that most (I am not genralising) Woman who try and achieve a name for themselves do it 1)Out of running of the so called Drudgery of family life 2)Out of a Bad experience in their life 3)Out of basic interest in the field they have chosen I would appreciate any kind of feedback on these questions more out of interest in this area than bringing up a controversy. Rgds, Prashanth Cannanbilla
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (06/27/91)
In article <143634@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") writes: > Another thing is why do women have to behave in a absolutely Positivly > Woman (Traditional type Makeup, act Dumb et al) or the other side of > them like Morden so called Libbers (Don't shave Legs, Dont use perfume > kind) Why can't there be more of Natural woman who know that men know > they need us as much as we need them and there is no need to act > highty and mighty or even dumb (which they ar'n't) I mean spare the > artificialities, do they actually need them?? I assume that since you have an educational account, that you exist in a "university" atmosphere. Even here in Nebraska, the university tends to be an artificially extreme atmosphere. Actually, I think that there are a lot of women who are "natural." I consider myself one of them. Now, to be very truthful, I might be considered a "libber" because I am a feminist, but I do hold men in high regard. I don't feel compelled to shave my legs or wear makeup. I shave my legs because /I/ want to -- my boyfriend has indicated to me that he wouldn't mind if I chose not to and in fact, I believe he prefers me unshaven. I also wear makeup because /I/ want to -- very often, my boyfriend asks me why I even bother with the stuff. The point is: I am a feminist because I do believe that woman have been treated unfairly in society and in the workplace. I am also an individual who makes up her own mind on how I choose to present myself in appearance. To me -- this is natural. I respect men and I certainly don't denigrate them. I will point out injustices when I see them or experience them, but I don't feel that I bash men in the least. One problem I do see with what you have written is that women don't necessarily need men just as much as men need them -- I have many lesbian friends who feel no need for men either socially or emotionally and I respect their lifestyles. By the same token, I am sure that there are gay men who feel the same way. (For the most part, my gay and lesbian friends do have friends of the opposite sex, however.) I think that we need to keep this in mind. > Lastly Is it true that most (I am not genralising) Woman who try and > achieve a name for themselves do it > 1)Out of running of the so called Drudgery of family life > 2)Out of a Bad experience in their life > 3)Out of basic interest in the field they have chosen I seek to succeed both professionally and have a good family life. I do not plan to sacrifice my childen to a career, however. Nor will I put up with an employer who seeks to hold me back professionally just because I plan to eventually have a family. To answer your question more directly -- I think that a lot of women who seek to achieve a name for themselves do this for a lot of reasons. Some women /do/ want to escape the drudgery of family life. Some women do get bored after they've packed the husband and kids off to school. Being a housewife is certainly not a demeaning profession, but I think that for a lot of women it just lacks an intellectual challenge. I'm sure that there are women who seek to succeed because of a Bad Experience. I'm not sure what you mean by a Bad Experience, but I certainly think that some women have been treated poorly and do wish to prove themselves to the world. But I'm sure that this happens to men as well. A lot of people want to prove themselves. This is a basic motivation. Interest in a field is also extremely motivating. I know that I became interested in the field I'm entering -- education -- when I was young. I've always found learning and how learning takes place to be very fascinating and I'm sure that I will continue my studies in this area. Is this not a motivating factor for men as well? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rivero@dev8c.mdcbbs.com (06/27/91)
In article <143634@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") writes: > I have had this question for some time in my mind and > I am bringing this out for open debate on this topic. > > It might seem, that these days to see Woman as head of a organisation > or leading another bunch of women and men in the organisation is quite > a common place. I would though like to know how many of these woman > have successfully managed their career and their Family life ? I have > come to know of lots of women have had either to give up one or > another and they have always seemed to do this with some regret. > I think that there is an attitude that you may have missed. Whereas men are raised to expect their careers to support their families, many women have been "politicized" into expecting their families to support their careers. This is most evident in 2 career families where the woman will often accept lower paying jobs that offer greater "prestige"; an option that the man may not have due to financial obligations. ========================================================================== Michael Rivero rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs NEW SIG UNDER DEVELOPMENT ==========================================================================
rao@cdrsun.stanford.EDU (Subbarao Kambhampati) (06/28/91)
[This is w.r.t. an article posted from bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu's account. An article, which was uncannily similar to this one, was posted to soc.culture.indian a couple of days ago from the same account, under the name of Viswambara (and not prasad, as this one was posted). Far be it for me to suggest any "mischievous intent"--but it does seem strange that the name of the poster keeps changing. Anyways, here is my (serious) response to the posting on soc.culture.indian. -Rao[Jun 27, 1991]] --------------- In article <144654@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Viswambara) writes expressing doubts about "these liberated women": >I have also observed that those women who think they are the >independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones >since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a >unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the >marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to >compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more >cynical about Men. But again all these are general observations and >personal experience. Hmm.. Let's see--it stands to reason to assume that there are at least as many men who think they are the independent kind as there are women who think that way, right? And yet, you seem to imply that marriages fall apart only if the women are the independent type! Is it possible that independence, even if it is of the "uncompromising variety" is supported in men, but punished in women? >Is this what our Modern India coming to? Are we socially suited for >taking on this kind of Marriage -Divorce on finding small >Compromisable faults. No I am not talking of keeping marriage alive >where there is physical or Mental Abuse on either side constantly, But >breaking up on trival issues or for convienence seems This seems to be the familiar ploy of "Are we ready to endorse freedom of choice for women, 'cuz if we do, then, Aiiyyayyo we will have OOODLES OF DIVORCES in our midst"!! First, let me ask if Mr. Viswambara can point out some portentous statistics that would convince us that marriages are falling apart for trivialest of reasons because of the "independent" women? Second, let me add that the pitfalls of this type of argument are many. Suffice it to say that I would rather stay with a system where people are "free" and divorce rate is slightly higher, than a system that provides artificial stability by denying freedom of choice to half the population! Finally, let me get to the first para of his message.. > I would though >like to know how many of these woman have successfully managed >their career and their Family life? I have come to know of lots >of women have had either to give up one or another and they have >always seemed to do this with some regret. If Mr. Viswambara ever asked himself the same question about men, then he would have realized the glaringly lopsided state of affairs. The fact of the matter is that for generations upon generations, men were able to have career *as well as* family!! They were able to do that because women *by societal pressure or out of choice*, stayed at home and took care of everything. Now that women have fought for and got a chance to exercise their freedom of choice vis a vis their careers--we are turning back and telling them: "look, we are all for your career etc, of course--but we hope you take care of all the family matters that you used to take care of before!!" In other words, to exercise their freedom of choice, women have to be "superhuman"! This after all is the message that is drummed in by the popular media--such as a Femina interview where Mrs. X. says that she has built her 100M business, but still puts her family first before her business. All this succeeds remarkably well making "career-women" (yet another play of words--did you ever hear an appellation "career-men"?) feel guilty about their choices. What is more, we are quite good at telling them that it is all somehow *their* fault--that the anguish and guilty feelings that they are having to deal with are things that they had brought upon themselves! [** I heard an interesting anecdote on a radio interview with an NYT columnist recently. Apparently, this woman (whose name I forgot), used to write a family advice column for NYT and was quite well received by her readers. That is until the day when she wrote in her column that she has a baby sitter to take care of her infant and toddler for several hours of the day, when she is at "WORK". Suddenly, she got angry letters from her readers saying that she should be *ASHAMED* of leaving such small kids with babysitters that way, and that they would no longer take her family advice seriously. This woman wonders: "When do these people think I write the advice column? At 3 AM in the morning, after all my family goes off to sleep??***] Is it any surprise then, that more and more women, who can't afford to be superwomen, are faced with the "Sophie's Choice" of family or career--a choice that most men never had to make? This state of matters will not change as long as we continue this position of "If women want careers, women can get careers--as long as they don't ask us men to change our life styles because of them". Equality should mean equal responsibility. Things aren't going to be "the same" for men. We cannot afford to cling on to the lifestyles and work-place ethics that were designed to suit an eigteenth century man, with his hugely supportive family infrastructure. Men should be just as responsible for their families, and bringing up children etc. as women should be. The quandaries of juggling family and career should be SHARED by both the partners. Rao [Subbarao Kambhampati]
gcf@uu.psi.com (06/29/91)
either bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") or Prashanth
Cannanbilla writes:
| ...
| It might seem, that these days to see Woman as head of a organisation
| or leading another bunch of women and men in the organisation is quite
| a common place. I would though like to know how many of these woman
| have successfully managed their career and their Family life ? I have
| come to know of lots of women have had either to give up one or
| another and they have always seemed to do this with some regret.
|
| I have also observed that those women who think they are the
| independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones
| since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a
| unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the
| marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to
| compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more
| cynical about Men. ...
There is probably a lot of truth in these observations,
stereotypical as they seem to be. Often truth underlies
banalities, platitudes, and stereotypes in a most annoying
manner.
However, the conflicts between business success and family life
are not confined to one sex. Many men succeed in business at
the cost of their family lives, and possibly vice versa. Many
men who are good at corporate politics can't get along with
their wives or other family members. The conflicts between the
values of family life and the values of the world, which in the
case of the United States and probably most other cultures are
severe, often pose this choice. Gender does not seem to have
a lot to do with it.
The conflicts between business success and family life have been
noticed more in the case of women because it has only been in
the last generation or so that middle-class women have moved
into the business world, and many of them did so as conscious
adults. For the majority of men, work in the world has been an
assumption from early childhood, and its conditions have not
been much questioned. One of the great contributions of
feminism has been the questioning of those conditions.
Of course, working-class women have been working outside the
home since the beginning of the industrial revolution; it has
often been necessary for survival. But the working class has
been inarticulate, people to be used up and discarded, and the
higher, more articulate orders have seldom been very concerned
about the personal lives of those upon whom their status rests.
--
Gordon Fitch | mydog!gcf@panix.comU23700%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (06/29/91)
In article <143634@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") says: >It might seem, that these days to see Woman as head of a organisation >or leading another bunch of women and men in the organisation is quite >a common place. I would though like to know how many of these woman >have successfully managed their career and their Family life ? I have >come to know of lots of women have had either to give up one or >another and they have always seemed to do this with some regret. i just read a recent survey in either a woman's magazine or women's section of the sunday chicago tribune (i can't remem- ber, but i'll try to find it) concerning guilt and working mothers. the results of the survey were that only about 10% (give or take a few percent, cuz of my memory) of working mothers experience severe guilt about working outside the home, whether they have husbands or not. the only times they ever felt really guilty was perhaps when the child(ren) were sick. most women (between 30 and 40%) did not feel guilty about working outside the home and familty *at all*. the horrible guilt women are supposed to feel (in the U.S., anyway) is largely a media-hyped myth. also, remember the saying "behind every great man, there is a great woman"? that is a very old saying, from way back. the kernel of truth is that, any extremely successful person needs a "wife", if they have a family. traditionally, men could go out in the world and spend 12 hours or more a day away from their homes and families *because* their wives were there to take care of the running of the household, and childcare. if they didn't have wives, they either would have to give up their successful and demanding careers, or give up their children to someone who would have the time to love, nurture, and care for the kids. successful women or women with demanding careers/jobs have exactly the same problems, but they also get extra pressure to be the "good mother" and the "good wife", because those are the roles expected of women in this society. (the "superwoman" syn- drome a previous post mentioned). the roles used to be clearly defined: men were the breadwinners, women the mothers and wives; men were unemotional and logical, and women were emotionally giving, but unstable. consequently there were many bored bored or neurotic housewives addicted to valium, and many children who couldn't talk or relate to fathers -- even as adults -- because their fathers were unable to ex- press their tender feelings for them. i, for one, am glad that now we have a chance to show children that mommy can be strong, and that daddy can be gentle and talkative. > >I have also observed that those women who think they are the >independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones >since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a >unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the >marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to >compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more >cynical about Men. But again all these are general observations and >personal experience. others have responded sufficiently about this point. let me just point out as they did that, men have been behaving this way about the conflict between relationships and careers/jobs for eons, and no one had a problem with that (except their wives and children, whose opinions until recently were not reported in the popular press and media). > >Another thing is why do women have to behave in a absolutely Positivly >Woman (Traditional type Makeup, act Dumb et al) or the other side of believe it or not, many men expect it, even if they don't like it. the more stupid and helpless the woman is, the more likely she'll "need" a man around, is the way the thinking goes. (this kind of attitude can also be observed in the upper class power elite, who prefer the working and under-class people to be uneducated and misinformed, so that they remain dependent on the rich and powerful for political information and jobs/income). >them like Morden so called Libbers (Don't shave Legs, Dont use perfume >kind) Why can't there be more of Natural woman who know that men know the "natural woman" *HAS SOME BODY HAIR*! *not shaving* IS natural! the only way not to have hair on your legs is if a) you are genetically hairless, or less hairy; b) you shave your legs and armpits; c) you put chemicals on your skin which cause the hair to dissolve enough to be wiped off; d) you go through expensive, repeated electrolysis; or, e) you rip the hair out repeatedly by waxing or with appliances made specially for ripping the hair out at the root of the hair shaft. >they need us as much as we need them and there is no need to act there is a difference between need and want. need connotes some level of dependency. wanting something means you don't need it to survive, but you like it. >highty and mighty or even dumb (which they ar'n't) I mean spare the >artificialities, do they actually need them?? well, shaving leg hair (or other methods or removing it) *IS ARTIFICIAL*. perfume does not naturally occur on women (except for everyone's unique body scent, and sweat), so wearing perfume *IS ARTIFICIAL*. yet you disparage the women who *don't* do these artificial things (if i am understanding your writing correctly) -- you *want* women who shave their legs and wear perfume, you want those particular artificial things. yet you contradict yourself, saying you don't want the "artificialities" of women who act "high and mighty or even dumb". i am not trying to insult you, i am just trying to point something out. > >Lastly Is it true that most (I am not genralising) Woman who try and >achieve a name for themselves do it i'd like to point out that "achieving a name" and working for a living are two different things. there are many people who try to achieve a great deal of success in their job for a variety of reasons, including some of the ones you have listed below. however, there are many people -- men and women -- who work *just to survive*. in the united states these days, many families find that living off of one person's income (traditionally, the husband/father's) *is no longer possible*. while i think that rampant consu- merism and debt-based affluence are part of the problem, it is certainly very true that many couples both must work just to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children, or to send their children to private schools (because public education in this country is not good enough) or on to college. also, many women work because they are the *only* parent their children have. also, many families have both parents working because they need the job benefits for their family, specific- ally in terms of health care -- which is becoming less and less affordable these days. >1)Out of running of the so called Drudgery of family life >2)Out of a Bad experience in their life >3)Out of basic interest in the field they have chosen > >I would appreciate any kind of feedback on these questions more out >of interest in this area than bringing up a controversy. well, i am trying to give you feedback. but you must under- stand that this is still a touchy subject for men and for women. > >Rgds, > >Prashanth Cannanbilla