Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    With regard to society making women feel more valued---Not only
    equal pay for equal work, but equal opportunity to succeed and advance
    in whatever field a woman chooses to work.  I strongly believe that
    people in general, including women, need to value the differences
    between women and men.  I for one wouldn't want to see a "unisex"
    society where men and women are the same.  I think that women's
    ability to nurture, be supportive, be demonstrative, for example
    are valuable to society at large, especially since many men are
    unable to exhibit those characteristics.
    
    As for what women can do to make themselves more valued--That's
    a tough question to comment on.  The thoughts that first come to
    mind are to value the "soft" side of ourselves, try to be more
    assertive about what we want from our mates, careers, etc.  Focus
    more on the positive things we can do and less on the negative.
    I have heard so many women say, "I'm just a secretary", or "I'm
    just a housewife".  Be proud of what you do and do it well.  If
    you don't have an outstanding career and you don't want an outstanding
    career, be happy with that and with yourself.  My manager commented
    once on a basic difference between men and women that he has
    interviewed for positions in our group.  If men have 2 things they
    do really well and 3 they don't do as well they will focus on the
    2 things and downplay the 3.  Women do just the opposite.  If that
    is true (and he says it has occurred frequently) then we need to
    rethink how we present ourselves.
    
    One radical thing we women could do is all go on strike for a week
    from whatever we do.  I'll bet we'd be more valued then.  (This
    is not a serious suggestion.)
    
    Pat
    

    Not only equal pay for equal work, but vice versa.
    There are cases out there (and there are posters made stating this,
    that the men work less than their female counterparts, but get paid
    equally..)  I guess this is really the same thing as the original
    statement, but I think it has a slightly different flavor, myself.
    
    Are women valued in society today?  I think yes.
    
    As much as they should be?  No, but then perhaps too much in the
    wrong way.
    
    Too much emphasis has been placed on their appearance (see the note
    on Media Portrayals of Women) and not enough on their performance.
    
    Allow me to digress for a moment, but I think it applies here.
    
    Women can do almost anything that a man can (excluding taking a
    leak while hiking without pulling down pants, but let's keep this
    reasonable :^).  Women can also have babies, which men cannot. 
    (Mixed blessing, this capability!)
    
    Would a society where women are dominant (by nature of their added 
    attribute being a better "total" person) be successful?
    
    I don't think so.  I think that the effort should be a "team" one,
    kinda like Bonnie and Clyde (to draw one not-so-hot reference, but
    the best I can think of at the moment).
    
    "Women are not valued in societies today."
    
    I think the statement should be:
    
    "Societies do not value women for things that they themselves see
     as positive attributes."
    
    We're (possibly) measuring oranges with an apple-based yardstick
    here, and the oranges are starting to get tired of having to appear
    like apples...
    
    Society and women would both be much happier as a whole if they
    could come to an agreement on the yardstick...  Value must be measured,
    but who is to do the measuring, and what is to be measured?
    
    Bill

    Re .0:
    
    Jim, we don't want to be made to _feel_ more valued by society.
    We want to _be_ more valued by society.
    
    -Tracy
    

    Seems to me that women are loosing value in society. If women act like
    men,  the uniqueness of being a woman is lost. Jobs, equal,
    pay, etc, have nothing to do with the value of women. How society
    respects women for being women is what has the true value. Its ironic
    that people would say women have more value today, in the US, than
    fifty years ago, but we have more rape, abuse, pornography, and prostitution
    than ever before. Look at TV and advertising, women are portrayed as
    sex objects more than ever. Is this true value ? Women have more opportunity
    today than before, but unless we see women as having a specialness
    that society cannot afford to loose, rather than a marketable commodity,
    women will only have the value of marketable items, which will
    rise and fall depending on societies demands.
    
    Jim

    re: .1
    
    "I for one wouldn't want to see a "unisex" society where men and
    women are the same.  I think that women's ability to nurture, be
    supportive, be demonstrative, for example are valuable to society
    at large, especially since men are unable to exhibit those
    characteristics."
    
    Unisex society?  Unless we all get our plumbing replaced with standard,
    unisex parts, women and men will continue to have some differences...
    
    Men aren't constitutionally *unable* to nurture, be supportive,
    etc.  They have been *conditioned* not to be nurturing, supportive,
    etc.  YES, exactally, women's role at being the great mother/nurturer
    to all is valuable to society, but puts all the burden on women,
    and this is what exactally needs to change, among other things...
    
    
    re: .6
    
    "If women act like men, the uniqueness of being a woman is lost."
    
    How are women acting like men?
    
    "...but we have more rape, abuse, pornography and prostitution than
    ever before."
    
    And as long as women keep fighting for their rights and making some
    headway in that area, the patriarchy will push back with violence
    against women in order to keep them in their place.  Violence has
    always been used to oppress women, and violence is used to oppress
    minorities.  It is a totally loathsome practice, but it *is* effective
    at accomplishing the goal.  Good women stay in at night and take
    care of their men, children, and the men's houses.  Bad women go
    out at night and are raped.  They ask for it because they are out
    of their owner's home at night.  Prostitution is economic, it is
    a means by which oppressed women support themselves.  How many
    prostitutes have you really sat down and talked to in terms of why
    they are doing what they're doing?  This is not to say that beyond
    the economics, prostitutes are subject to violence from their 'Johns'
    and the pimps. 
    

>    As for what women can do to make themselves more valued

Smash the patriarchy [this qualifiers as a wry joke]
	Mez

    I hope we can increase the respect society has for us by getting
    out and *doing* things, both traditionally female things and
    not-so-traditional things, so that our capabilities as *human beings*
    are obvious, regardless of our lack of Y chromosomes.  I'm valuable
    when the rabbi calls me on Friday morning at work to see if I happened
    to bake an extra challah (braided bread eaten on the Jewish sabbath)
    late Thursday night because the bakery is closed because the owner
    is sick, and I happen to have done so and can supply the bread for
    the services.  I also feel valued when I show up at an amateur radio
    convention that is 95% male, or go scuba diving with a similarly
    small group of women amongst all the men divers.  I think it is
    good when I see women joggers (not me, anymore, since I developed
    a bone spur on my right heel).  I feel valued when I go to some
    "important" meeting and find that I am not the only woman engineer
    in attendance anymore (and long for the day when it is 50/50!).
    

re: .8

>        Society reflects the extent that women have chosen to 
>    value themselves.

    In your opinion, right?
    
>        Cultures that produce female body builders and men that sue
>    for palimony become suspect after awhile.
 
    what's wrong with female body builders?  - asks Jody who lifts 3x/week,
    among other pursuits for physical health.
       
>        Societies that aren't grounded in the roots of History, the
>    roots of community, are societies suseptible to whatever is the
>    latest whim that blows in the wind.
 
    Societies that are constrained by the roots of history and community
    are often unable to change due to an inability to acquire or make
    available the societal freedom to alter their courses.
       
>        The reach for a Society of intelligence and moral fiber is
>    what's most obvious to me.

    Me, too.  However, morals are not all the same.  What you may consider
    moral, others may consider ridiculous - and vice versa.  In fact,
    morals, by their very nature, are extremely subjective, and I have
    often found that a person's degree of intelligence is often unrelated
    to whether or not I find them "morally correct".
    
>            And that means reaching for a book instead of the tube, 
>    something the illiterate cannot comprehend.
 
    I agree - but we will not all reach for the same books.  And often,
    we will reach for books that contain ideas we are comfortable with,
    ideas that we already hold to be true.  How can we arrive at common
    values, common goals, common ideals of what is valuable in men and
    women, if we do not always see the same hand?  It is all so subjective,
    and we are so close to the topic we may have difficulty seeing the
    forest for the trees.  
    
    I agree we must accentuate what is INSIDE people, rather than what
    is OUTSIDE people.  We must establish the freedom for people to
    become as expert as possible at whatever they are best at (within
    the confines of the law, of course).  If a woman is treated with
    disrespect for wanting to major in hydraulics and pneumatics (as
    I once did), and a man is scoffed at for wanting to be a beautician,
    then something is wrong.  We are not accepting the differences and
    allowing people to break the barriers that have been erected between
    the sexes.

    People should be valued for their abilities, for the things at which
    they can succeed, whether they are child-rearing, painting, singing,
    nursing, plumbing, preaching, teaching, or programming. 
    
    -Jody
        

    re .12   "In your opinion, right?"
    
              Society, which comprises of the 2 sexes, combines their
              respective strengths to form the culture in any given
              nation, state, or locality.
    
              Or household for that matter.
    
              Perhaps you'd like to hear my views comparing French
              women with American women?
    
             "What's wrong with female body builders"?
    
              The professionals seen in contests have overdeveloped
              bodies and have trouble regarding childbirth capability
              ( not that 'Motherhood' is connected to female identity,
                or ever was...).
    
              "Societies that are constrained by the roots of history
               and community are often unable to change due to an inability
               to acquire or make available the societal freedom to
               alter their courses."
    
               Comparing the USSR, China, Japan and the US, which do
               you suppose is best suited to retain a respect for
               tradition, while being able to "keep up with the times",
               and why?
    
               What historical 'constraints' (traditions/Society/Community/
               family/personal) do you feel to be obsolete?  Downright
               bad?  A bit backwards?  Moves TOWARD intellectual,
               emotional (spiritual), or even physical atrophy/entropy/
               stagnation/extinction.  Or just plain 'averageness' or
               'mediocrity.'
    
               What 'new things' or 'ideas' do you think might lead
               Societies down that same undesirable road?
    
               What historical things do you find valuable and worth
               keeping?
    
               Christianity?  Churches?  Civic activity?  Cohesive
               Communities?  Families?  Marriage?  Traditional values,
               roles, and education?  A mastery of the classics?  Knowing
               history, literature, art, music?  Mastering a trade?
               Honoring scholarship, people of merit?  Libraries?
               conservation, The Post office?  The Barber?  The (former)
               Cop on the beat?  The local Grocer?  The (former) milkman?
               The (former) House-visiting doctor?  Manners.  Duty?
               The bookstore?  The Gas station?  A cobblestone road?
               The horse & buggy?  A picnic in the park?  A balloon
               ride?  A ballroom dance?  Bicycling in the countryside?
               The art of dating?  The town paper?  Penmanship and letter-
               writing?  Single sex schools?  The honor of one's word?
    
               What institutions, ideas, values, and behaviors would
               like to see uprooted ("changed" if you will) to accomodate
               the "need" for "growth" (or "progress") that you think
               must be allowed for a Society to be healthy ( ie "to
               alter their courses"[or else face the consequences])?
    
               Do you think 'egalitarian' ideas are good?  Why or why
               not?
    
               "...morals are not all the same ... morals, by their
               very nature, are extreemely subjective,..."
    
               The behavior of people reflects their moral values.
               Standards of excellence point toward absolutes; truth.
               
               There is enough facts available to explain the behavior
               of people.  The problem is agreeing on 'the facts' and
               whether or not they are a valid/valuable guide as to
               how people SHOULD behave.  On this point I find that
               the disagreements/controversies flare up.
    
               Such points sometimes make for exciting topics...
    
               "we will not all reach for the same books."
    
                As individuals we needn't bother ourselves with who
                else reads what.  We need only to read the best works
                for our selves.  
    
               "...we must accentuate what is INSIDE people..."
    
                Yes, but it has to be very specific.  Defined spirituality,
                values, skills, interests.
    
                "We are not accepting the differences and allowing
                 people to break the barriers that have been erected..."
    
                 If some "barriers" are broken, one or both of the sexes
                 will break.
    
                 If Societies "problems" involve cultural nihilism
                 then I see no need for feminism (seeing that the 'problem'
                 is not sexual in nature).
    
                 However if it is sexual in nature (or sufficiently
                 so), then ideologies that form with that in mind bear
                 further exploration(s).
    
                 For all we know it's simply something called "sin."
    
                 Which is probably the case.
    
                                                       Russ P

re: .13
    
    I will reply briefly, as I do not wish to get bogged down explaining
    my opinions.
    
>              Perhaps you'd like to hear my views comparing French
>              women with American women?
 
    No, I would not, but thank you for the offer.  I feel your opinion
    and mine, as regards women, do not jibe all that well.
       
>               What historical 'constraints' (traditions/Society/Community/
>               family/personal) do you feel to be obsolete?  Downright
>               bad?  A bit backwards?  Moves TOWARD intellectual,
>               emotional (spiritual), or even physical atrophy/entropy/
>               stagnation/extinction.  Or just plain 'averageness' or
>               'mediocrity.'
 
    Obsolete constraint = A Woman's Place is in the Home.  My wish =
    a woman's place is where she wants to be.  The old way is both downright
    bad and a bit backwards.  Constraints that remove X degrees of freedom
    (kinematically speaking ;) from the culture at large and do not
    yield positive results would reduce the flexibility and adaptability
    of the culture.
       
>               What 'new things' or 'ideas' do you think might lead
>               Societies down that same undesirable road?
    
    The "new thing" that bothers me is lip service to equal rights for
    all.  Many words are spoken, promises are even made, which have
    not been fulfilled by actions.
    
>               What historical things do you find valuable and worth
>               keeping?
 
    Our history is valuable by the very lessons it can teach us, however
    we must not dwell on the "stereotypes" it presents.  I feel certain
    parts of history (its "quirks", "oddities", occasional occurrences)
    can teach us more than a vast overview.

    All of you who wish to leave now, as I counter the questions, are
    welcome to.  
           
    Christianity?  useful, interchangeable with other religions  
    Churches?  useful within the realm of religion
    Civic activity?  very important, historically and today
    Cohesive  Communities?  important, but fading (moresthepity)
    Families?  important, being redefined currently
    Marriage?  important, and also being slightly redefined.  I feel
    		that not enough people take it seriously, though.
    Traditional values?	 Important, but need to be inspected prior to
    		acceptance these days.
    roles?  traditional roles also need to be inspected prior to acceptance.
    education?  very important, not backed enough by government.
    A mastery of the classics?  enriches the mind, but other things
    		are more important ( like survival)
    Knowing history?  again, useful, but not at the top of the list
    literature?  same here
    art?  ditto
    music?  music is something almost everyone can enjoy in one form
    		or another.  It can soothe, reach, and teach.
    Mastering a trade?  VERY VITAL  for MEN AND WOMEN.
    Honoring scholarship?  important, and not just for $$$ sake, either.
    people of merit?  if merit=honesty, yes.
    Libraries?  Yes, very important
    conservation?  Yes, preserving what we have is important
    The Post office?  useful, but e-mail is faster ;)
    The Barber?  useful, but I can cut hair, too.
    The (former) Cop on the beat?  useful, I miss 'em.
    The local Grocer?  useful, but chain stores are less expensive.
    The (former) milkman?  useful, but not necessary these days
    The (former) House-visiting doctor?  I'd rather have an HMO
    Manners?  Important, but when "manners" becomes pompous 
    		"etiquette", I bow out.
    Duty?  Hard to define.  Currently changing.  These days, one's
    		duty is to ones self, ones family, ones community, and
    		one's country and one's planet....
    The bookstore?  They're still around, good thing, too.
    The Gas station?  Service could be better.
    A cobblestone road?  good for walking, but not for driving.
    The horse & buggy?  relaxing, but no good on I-90.
    A picnic in the park?  I had one of these last weekend ;)
    A balloon ride?  Too expensive, but lots of fun.
    A ballroom dance?  Yes, I too can waltz.
    Bicycling in the countryside?  Good fresh-air exercise.
    The art of dating?  Is not all lost, although it seems to be getting
    		a little threadbare in some places.  Again, being redefined.
    The town paper?  Is not lost.  
    Penmanship and letter- writing?  It should be done more often, but
    		e-mail is faster and easier.  
    Single sex schools?  Are no longer useful, in my opinion.
    The honor of one's word?  Is important to one's integrity (still).
    
    
>                 If some "barriers" are broken, one or both of the sexes
>                 will break.
    
    I do not share this opinion.  Please don't ask me why.  I really
    don't feel that explaining one of the basic tenets of my life (the
    seeking of freedom of choice/opportunity for all) would change your
    mind.
    
    -Jody
 

re: .13:
    
             "What's wrong with female body builders"?
    
              The professionals seen in contests have overdeveloped
              bodies and have trouble regarding childbirth capability
              ( not that 'Motherhood' is connected to female identity,
                or ever was...).

Some observations:

-- given the amount of steroids many male body builders take, "trouble
   regarding childbirth capability" is hardly an issue for women alone.

-- assuming the athlete does not take drugs, "female childbirth capability"
   (I assume you mean fertility, rather than the ability to actually give
   birth once pregnant) is linked with the percentage of body fat, and
   is characteristic of some long distance runners.  At the 1984 Olympic
   Marathon trials, two pregnant women competed (one was six months pregnant).
   They completed the 26 miles without difficulty either to themselves or
   to their children.  Their pace, while pregnant, would place themselves
   among the top 10-15% of all women who run marathons.  (And among the
   top 30% of all men.)

Martin.

    I'd also add that professional body building is an extreme case and
    hardly supports the view that body building is bad for women, at any
    rate.  Not to mention that it is presumptuous of you to declare the
    "overdeveloped bodies" of professional WOMEN body builders as something
    BAD (wrong).  Or is it just bad when women do it and not when men
    do?  I find extremes in both sexes unattractive, but that's personal
    taste only.
    
    I guess it's easy to ignore the benefits of weight lifting (and
    other unladylike activities) since that doesn't support your
    stereotypes.
    
    J (who is simply amazed at how easy it has been the past month to
       guess the gender of note's authors.  Actually, its pretty sad.)

    Personally, I find the professional body-builders' bodies to
    be aesthetically repulsive, male or female.
    
    --- jerry

    Personally, I find that whatever activity one chooses  to participate
    in, which gives one reward for the time spent, and which harms no
    one else is perfectly OK with me.
    
    I don't agree, of course, with the taking of steroids (which is
    much more common in males - but as devestating in either sex)
    
    but that is a different issue than simply "bodybuilding".
    
    I'd rather watch bodybuilders show their muscles than watch pro
    football players beat each other up under the guise of "sport".
    
    The "complaining" about women athletes' reprodcutive anomalies
    seems to me to be a smokescreen for bemoaning lack of control of
    women's reproductive functions.
    
    --DE
    

    One of the two major political parties in Germany (the SPD, = 	
    Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland) decided a couple of weeks
    ago that they would have a "Quotenregelung": 30% of the official
    positions within the party MUST BE filled by women; the GREEN party
    (oekologists) want it 50:50; when the unions have an open job, they
    write "women preferred".
    First, I was not quite sure whether I liked it; but now I think
    it will effect some changes in the long run; there's big riots about
    these regulations, of course; I think in a couple of years (or more
    than just a couple) these things will be "normal"; women in official
    positions will be "normal".
    Regulations may seem strange sometimes, but what counts is the impact
    on people's consciousness.
    pony
     +
    

    
    many months later...
    I'm intrigued by a perspective here. Namely, that the question of
    'value', strictly speaking, is a question of economics. That is, what
    is the comodity 'human being' worth? Now, I'm not an economist, but I
    believe that most of us think that the value of a comodity is based
    primarily on 'supply and demand'. Supply is pretty straightforward: how
    much stuff is there. From the 'supply side' (not to be mistaken for a
    recently discredited economic theory), there seem to be plenty of
    people to go around. This would seem to indicate a lowering of value.
    Demand, however, is the more interesting side. There is more demand for
    computer professionals than for flautists. Why? I believe that
    classical economists would say that computer professionals are more
    'productive'; that is, they produce more goods or services that are of
    value. (This seems to be circular reasoning: they are more valuable
    because there is more demand, there is more demand because what they do
    is more valuable.) Or, more simply, that thing called 'the market'
    seems to think that computers are more valuable than flutes. What I'm
    thinking about these days is that 'the market' is *us*. I'm thinking that
    we as individuals, perhaps, need to take more responsibility for the
    strange things 'the market' seems to value: guns more than teachers,
    cars more than clean air, computers more than flutes, and men more than
    women.