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
vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) (03/01/91)
In article <lc9Gzbfi@cs.psu.edu>, sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) writes: > > 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? > > 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. This is where you lose me, Mark. I'll agree that SOME women think men should make more than them, but certainly not all women and I don't even believe that most women think men should make more than they do. I certainly don't believe this, and none of the women I know well believe this. Are you really saying that women should make less than men because some women feel that they should? Why should I be paid less for my work than a man who does the same work simply because of the misguided, sexist assumptions of some women? I'm not even talking about AA here, but simply equal pay for equal work (which, according to your argument, is bad). Furthermore, it's possible for MEN to marry into wealth, it happens all the time. I don't get it - what does marrying into wealth have to do with AA? Is "women making more money" the only goal of AA (or a goal at all)? Vicki -- Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 |
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (03/06/91)
In article <lc9Gzbfi@cs.psu.edu> sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >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. Cheapened? Excuse me? I didn't know we were trying to shove women under the carpet. >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. Excuse me again, but exactly HOW is the fact that most women earn less than men (so therefore wives earn less than husbands) tie in with AA? And what about all those men who marry for wealth? >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. So all of us women ought to go home right now and go back to our kitchens? Thanks for pointing out the stress in our society. Have you considered the fact that the women's movement(s) were caused by the stress that men were imposing on women by allowing them more access to education while attempting to keep them at home and out of the work force? >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. Why in the world would a woman *want* a man to make more than her? I sure don't!!! >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. I thought you said the confusion and insecurity came from the women's movements?! >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. Why are men slaves for something that has always been true (i.e. by definition everyone cannot make more than average). Or are you implying that men have always been slaves? And why the heck are women more competitive for men at the top? And what are men competing for? Funny me, I thought both men and women were looking for self-confident, attractive people. >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. Eventually, yes, the women's and the men's movements will have to work together but what makes you think that can happen now? (By the way, feminism != women's movement ... thank you.) Working towards social change is HARD. Look how long it took for women to get where they are now. Years! Almost a century of hard, hard work! Sure, some women see it as the golden goose, but you can't tell me they're like that because their women. There are people like that everywhere. But right now, I really don't see how the women's and the men's movements can realistically expect to work together. There are too few people spread far too thinly as it is. How do you expect them to add even *more* to their agendas? Where will they find the time? And what is it that they can do for men that men can't seem to do for themselves? It's not that I have anything against men or regard myself as more "privileged" than men, but rather that I can't understand why you and other men feel that the only way towards social progress is to attempt to appropriate the women's movement for yourself? To my mind, the women's movement (with all of its pitfalls and drawbacks) is quite right to continue to concentrate on women. No-one else does or will as history has shown. And yes, I know that sounds harsh and cynical and pragmatic, and it is. That's the way life works. >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 could put ten different words (most blaming men instead of feminism) in this sentence and they'd all have about as much validity. WHAT'S THE POINT??? If you want something ... go get it! *That* is what the women's movement has assumed and done. Why can't you do it? Why do you have to sit around and make absurd comments like : >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. ... when you could go out and do something! What are you waiting for? The "Feminist Seal of Approval"? >That's ok, though, >men have been suffering under their own for long before that. :-) Isn't it nice how all those other categories about Amerindians, and immigrants and Afro-Americans have now been completely dominated and subjected to the gender categories? What happened to all the other suffering? >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. Welcome to the real world. Look around you sometime. You'll find both men and women who feel the same way. >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. So you're saying that our governmental system today is feminist? More than feminist, the majority of congresspeople are women, and that our society is "matriarchal"??? I seriously suggest you go back and take a look at that. Men *do* have a stake in society. They always have and they always will. And no, this is *not* a matriarchal society. If this was a matriarchal society, why is it that *none* of my (all male!) mechanics EVER believed me when I told them what I thought was wrong with my car (hint: I was usually right too.) Why is it that every study I've ever seen says males get most of the attention in the school system? Why is it that I can't even wear a friggin' pair of *shorts* without getting whistles and lewd, deprecating comments by the construction workers (male)? Why is it that only 29% of all roles cast in Hollywood go to female actresses? Why why why why? I'm afraid that almost everything I see is contradictory to what you're saying. I can't believe what you have to say if I see so many contradictions to it every day of my life with my own eyes. Not that I think you're compeletely wrong. It's just there's more than just one side of the story to tell and if you don't start with yourself and your own sympathies how can you demand women to sympathize with yours? I'm sorry, but I feel there's much much more to this thing than just two childish groups of boys and girls standing on opposite sides of a line sticking tongues out at each other or of awful mean predatory women-creatures attacking men's self-esteem, or awful mean predatory men-creatures oppressing innocent women-things. Whoops! There I go getting idealistic again. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
sandberg@ipla01.hac.COM ("K. M. Sandberg") (03/14/91)
[Apologies for the delay in posting. The machine that handles our USENET connection was down for several days. --CTM] In article <lc9Gzbfi@cs.psu.edu> sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >... >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? Sorry, but it does not matter if a person marries into wealth with respect to the ability to get a job if you are qualified. After all if you then must look at the wealth of the person involved in order to determine if they should get the job. Men can also marry into wealth, but I don't see that as a factor in hiring. >... >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 >... You keep talking of pressures that you may feel, but not everyone (even every male) feels such a pressure. I think that it your own personal view that you must be superior to a female in wage earning in order to have a happy life. Consider why you feel that this pressure exists and from whom, and I would not doubt that it is mainly from yourself or people who are looking for a free ride. Kemasa. -- It would be interesting if people would listen to what they are saying, but then again others are not listening either, so why should they? e-mail address: sandberg@ipla01.hac.com