jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (03/28/91)
In article <jls.668306791@rutabaga> rutabaga!jls@igor.rational.com (Jim Showalter) writes: >I'm very confused by this post. It sounds like what you are saying is >that women are inherently less aggressive/assertive than men. After >all, there were no men around to "oppress" the women, and the still >acted shy and retiring. How can this be blamed on male >aggression?--there weren't any "aggressors" in the room. I'm very confused by this post. Why is it that you automatically assume that there must be an "inherent" i.e. biological cause for these women's behavior? Why do you instantly bring in the paradigm of the "inferior", the "handicapped" woman who is "innately" on a less equal footing than men? Why didn't you instead question the social institutions which train men and women to act in certain ways and thus makes victims of them all? Attempting to place blame and chastisement upon individuals has been proven to only make things worse and ignores the greater issue.... after all, it's ludicrous to imagine that EVERY SINGLE man wants to oppress women just as it's ludicrous to imagine that EVERY SINGLE woman has an "innate" inability to be aggressive. Instead, of trying to find models that allow us to blame everyone, there should instead be more interrogation of the whole underlying model i.e. what is producing all of these terrible men and women? The parents? No ... the other "parent" the surrogate parent that we all have to live with, society and the institutionalized ways it attempts to "socialize" everyone. >Why? What did the men in the combined class do to make this happen? >Did they threaten to kick the shit out of the women if they spoke up? >I somehow doubt it. So what DID happen? WHY did the women clam up? >Could this have more to do with the women themselves than any external >cause? Again, you're implying that there's blame in the people themselves. You even go so far as to imply again it's some "innate" fault of the women and explicitly deny that there could be any "external" cause-- which protects both the men and (to my mind) the REAL culprit, society by placing outside of possible interrogations. >>Involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism is a much stronger, more >>pervasive force than I had thought, and the only way to counteract it >>is to first become able to see it. Yes. >What, exactly, is "involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism"? Is it >the mere existence of men in the classroom? What precisely did the men >do to keep the women down? Could it be that the women kept THEMSELVES >down, and that the men actually are blameless? Again, you obsessively follow only half of the scene. Why is it so hard to figure out that she was not necessarily attacking the women? This sort of involuntary, gut reaction only serves to do exactly what you very explictly do, put down the women. Do you really think that's going to solve anything? Do you really think women CHOOSE to be oppressed? >Women will not achieve true equality until they can do so without >crutches. ^^^^^^^^^^ Oh boy! More "handicapped" language. It's so simple isn't it? All we have to do is "choose" not to be oppressed and magically it all disappears! But wait, we've got this innate handicap thing... oh yeah, that's right. We've got this stuff inside of us that's oppressing us (we're oppressing ourselves) which means we'll always be worse off than men who have no such handicap, so we'll all have to work just that much harder to overcome it cuz it's our problem that we're all born with. Wrong. I'm sorry, but I really don't think oppression is a biological characteristic. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
nriley@bootes.unm.edu (04/04/91)
Article <1991Mar28.032525.5260@ora.com> (Jeanette Dravk) responds to <jls.668306791@rutabaga> (Jim Showalter): >>What exactly is "involuntary, nonmalicious, habitual sexism"? Is it >>the mere existence of men in the classroom? What precisely did the men >>do to keep the women down? Could it be that the women kept THEMSELVES >>down, and that the men are actually blameless? >....... Do you really think women CHOOSE to be oppressed? Yes, there ARE some women who choose to be oppressed. They are the women of this society who fully recognize sexism, have all the capabilities for changing their situation, but for some reason do NOTHING about it. >>Women will not achieve true equality until they can do so without >>crutches. ^^^^^^^^^^ >Oh boy! More "handicapped" language. It's so simple, isn't it? All >we have to do is "choose" not to be oppressed and magically it all >disappears! Look, there are men in society who use the same crutches that some women do; he's not implying that women NEED these crutches. That's the irony of it all. Why do some women use them? I agree with your urgency in examining society. But it is also extremely important to examine ourselves as individuals, since we are part of this society. And, as a woman, I will take on Showalter's challenge of self-reflection whole-heartedly. He has a good point. To what extent am I a part of sexism? I don't feel that women are puppets of society. Ultimately, we CHOOSE what to do or what not to do. So, CHOOSING not to be oppressed is a big step. No, it won't "magically" solve the problems, but it is a crucial step. Nat Riley O. (nriley@bootes.unm.edu) "Many other women have kicked higher, balanced longer, or turned faster. These are poor substitutes for passion" Agnes DeMille