trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) (11/22/89)
Argue for or against the position: Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the next generation. This leads to the problem that feminist women, who often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less influence over their children than traditional women. This imbalance will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of traditional values. Correlary: If accepted into mainstream, the burgeoning men's rights movement with its emphasis on men accepting more of the traditionally feminine roles in the family, will have a more significant and lasting effect on the gender status quo than feminism. -- "When you're down, it's a long way up When you're up, it's a long way down It's all the same thing And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
jan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (11/28/89)
>that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the >next generation. This leads to the problem that feminist women, who >often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less >influence over their children than traditional women. > >Correlary: If accepted into mainstream, the burgeoning men's rights >movement with its emphasis on men accepting more of the traditionally >feminine roles in the family, will have a more significant and lasting ^^^^ >effect on the gender status quo than feminism. Feminist women are affecting traditional women, television, and even the men's rights movement, which may well be in great part a reaction to feminism. (Although it won't be for long i.e. the men's rights movement *historically* owes a lot to 1. backlash against AA 2. the fact that women can now bring money into the household 3. the tendency of men to respond to perceived male-bashing by thinking and listing the ways sexism hurts men. Once the momentum is going however, it is truly a men's movement, with the power to accomplish things feminists always wanted to accomplish but couldn't and never could.) Therefore, we affect the next generation in many other ways besides talking to our own children. If by more significant and lasting change you are *starting* in 1989, then of course you are right, because we have gotten 2/3 of *our* half of the job done, and it will unravel ultimately unless the men catch up. This is going to be no fun, because just as it has been painful for daughters of traditional women to find their own ways, often without the support of family and friends (1800's to 1970's, not now in na) so it will be difficult for sons of traditional men. And, though feminists would like to be able to promise to support men in this, I think we will get a nasty surprise and confirm *our* theoretical hypothesis that, just as men who are sons of traditional mothers must die out or at least get one divorce to learn to support a liberated woman, so also will daughters of traditional fathers have to die out or at least get one divorce before we learn to support liberated men. In other words, guys, you are in for a rough ride and it's not fair and we sympathize, but we may be unable to help much. Your sons will find feminists to support their liberation among your friends' daughters, probably not among our daughters. (i.e. one more generation) This sounds like it supports your conclusion, but, again, that is only if history starts in 1989. Before feminism, it was not even possible for most women to control the resources to even stay alive, *then* we started working on personality stuff. So if you go from the distant past to the distant future, I think we will have done more than half the work. (But I am not claiming that is because women do more or because we are doing your half of the work. It is because each gender can only liberate ourselves, and under patriarchy, women had lost body and soul, but men only soul. If you go back even further to matriarchy, then it evens out.) BTW if you are looking to find more *feminine* in yourself, why the competitive, challenging, male-style "correllary" ? (which, I admit, I answered in an equally competitive style.) -jan- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Universal Consciousness cannot be confined to any of the 5 genders, but we must worship Uy as each in turn in order to keep a balanced outlook." -- St. Xphlcyb of Alpha III
carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) (11/28/89)
In article <5953@unix.SRI.COM>, trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) writes: > > > Argue for or against the position: > > Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact > that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the > next generation. This leads to the problem that feminist women, who > often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less > influence over their children than traditional women. This imbalance > will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of > traditional values. I'll argue against. As I once posted in response to Matt Rosenblatt's similar comment, the surest way to produce a really tough female feminist is to try to raise an intelligent, ambitious girl in a traditional family. My quite traditional parents, doctor father and homemaker mother raised five children. Both boys accepted their parent's values and grew up quite traditional. All three girls ended up feminists. I'd say we all had a keen appreciation of where our own advantage lay. The notion that 'changing the status quo can only happen through education of the next generation' is quite naive. The next generation has been known to educate itself. Carole Ashmore
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (11/29/89)
In article <5953@unix.SRI.COM>, trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) writes: > > Argue for or against the position: > > Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact > that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the > next generation. This leads to the problem that feminist women, who > often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less > influence over their children than traditional women. This imbalance > will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of > traditional values. The analysis is just too simplistic to be valid. It is limited by its assumptions of who does the education, of who is being educated, and of what is being taught. Children aren't vessels filled up by the attitudes poured into them by their parents. If this were so, societal change would be a very quiet thing. Rather, children are sponges that soak up information and attitudes from every possible source. Parents, other relatives, school, their friends, the media all affect a child's views on gender roles. This ranges from the subtle aspects of passivity and responsibility to the grosser aspects of gender roles, such as who does the cooking, and who does the spanking. Also, as Carole Ashmore points out, feminists will not come only from progressive families -- my god, you must differ with your own parents on some subject! -- nor will all progressive families produce only feminists. (My personal nightmare is someday having sons that will tell me, "Dad, fuck the poor, they're losers. I just want to get rich, snag a tasty babe, and the whole world can go to hell.") Besides, at this point, I don't think you can say "feminist women" and "traditional women" and assume that you're talking about different groups of people. As much as people hoot over details of ``feminism'', whatever that is, even the most rabid anti-feminists are arguing from the feminist agenda. It's not a question anymore that women belong in the workplace; it is instead debated whether AA itself is morally, or if there is a glass ceiling on women's rise, etc. Just as Reagan did with issues like Central America or the defense department, or as 60's civil rights marches did with racial equality, the agenda of discussion has been forever changed. Finally, it is not just the "next generation" that is being taught. Although our own lives frequently seem to move in the age groups of our peers, society is really shaped by the endless waves of generations, each with its own abilities, values, and hangups that change as society does. One counter `post-feminist' hypothesis I could offer is that because things appear to have changed more than they have really changed (e.g., Margaret Thatcher is PM -- but where are the female Members of Parliament, and Maggie made it in on her husband's money, etc.), I see many people blithely assuming that the social revolution, as it were, is complete. While it's wonderful that some people are completely empowered, it is occasionally empowerment without the relevant experiences, a history-free consciousness that has completely bought the vision that Everything is Just Fine. That's all moderately pretentious, but I'm in too much of a hurry to clean it up, or give more examples. bye! t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (11/30/89)
In article <5953@unix.SRI.COM> trent@unix.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes: >Argue for or against the position: > >Hypothesis: One of the biggest dilemmas in feminism is that fact >that changing the status quo can only happen through education of the >next generation. This leads to the problem that feminist women, who >often reject the tradtional roles, may have less children or have less >influence over their children than traditional women. This imbalance >will tend to work against the goals of feminism in favor of >traditional values. I disagree. In other words, I don't think that if the mommy stays home with the children and the daddy goes off to work all day that ANYTHING the mommy _says_ about being liberated will fully overcome the message of what mommy _does_ -- which is staying home with the kids like a traditional mother, while dad plays the part of a drone, like a traditional father. All this message will say to the kids is: See, even feminist mommys stay home with the kids and send their husbands off to work. And what makes you think that the fathers, who will be presumably spending more time with the children since the mothers will be spending less time, will not be instilling proper non-sexist values in their children? >Correlary: If accepted into mainstream, the burgeoning men's rights >movement with its emphasis on men accepting more of the traditionally >feminine roles in the family, will have a more significant and lasting >effect on the gender status quo than feminism. I think this is true. I also think that if the men's movement had come first, that the women's movement would have had a larger effect. This is because ending sexism can only be maybe 10% effective if only one sex is involved. Add the other sex, and you get closer to 100% effectiveness. If we keep telling Becky that she _can_ be an engineer; but we don't tell Billy that he doesn't _have to_ be an engineer, who is going to try harder? Who is going to be more competitive? Who is going to effectively abandon the family out of a sense of financial obligation enforced by the gender status quo? -- ***************************dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU************************** "An expert system developed by the Rand Corportaion to ... simulate inter- national conflicts generally kept concluding that escalation into war was irrational. So the Pentagon ordered Rand to reprogram the system..."