Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I enjoy thinking about how structures that seem to be hierarchical might be
reworked to be cooperative. Business, industry, government, notes, family.
But I'm afraid I haven't gotten far enough to even give examples!
	Mez

    I once said that I thought gender should be irrelevant, that people
    should be addressed as people.  Someone responded, "I'm not a white
    male, I'm a woman and I don't want to be treated like a white male."
    So I guess the ideal world would be one in which the word "person"
    had no default value.

    To me one thing a new world would definitely *not* be, is a world
    where everybody acted the way most middle and upper-class white
    males do today,( or even the way most lower class males act today).
    In other words, a new world would *not* be a world where all the
    women acted like men (as we have come to think of men, in general, as 
    acting).
    
    To me, a new world would be a world where both men and women took
    on the best qualities of each sex, and discarded the worst, where
    women would have the freedom to do traditionally male "things",
    and where men would have the freedom to do traditionally female
    "things," if they wanted.
    
    I would like to see an equal number of men and women working as engineers
    and managers, an equal number of men  and women working as secretaries,
    and truck drivers, and staying home with the kids (if they wanted
    to and could afford to).  I would like girls growing up putting
    the same value on education, jobs, independance, love, marriage,
    romance and sex, as boys traditionally have.  I would like it to
    be okay for girls to want to play football and other sports, but
    I would also like it to be perfectly okay for a boy to *not* want
    to play sports.  I would like to see fathers put no more expectations
    on sons to be football players than on daughters.  I would like
    boys to not be considered sissies if they don't fight, or play sports,
    or if they cry sometimes.  I would like boys to grow up to be just
    as sensitive, caring and open as most girls always have.  I would
    like it to be okay for little boys to play with dolls or design
    and sew their own clothes if they want.  It seems to me as though
    most moves towards equality of the sexes (except for the new interest
    in men for taking care of their kids) depends on women acting and
    being more like men.  If women become just like men then some of
    the best qualities of the human race will be lost.  I think men
    should try to become more like women in some ways.  I don't think
    men should try to raise their sons to be tough "little men" who
    don't cry.  Little girls should be encouraged to be more independent,
    and I think that's already happening in the time since I grew up.
     But, little boys should be encouraged to be more sensitive and
    less agressive and I don't think that's happening yet.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    You had some interesting feelings, and I enjoyed your response.
    I don't know which "generation" you belong to, but my own
    seems to be moving in that direction.  The point that concerns
    me is that men have to make the changes, and not the women.
    I would feel more comfortable with both parties shifting a little
    more to the center.  This way both retain most of their original
    character, and gain some mutually beneficial commonalities.
    Just as women appreciate men adopting some of their desirable
    attributes, men appreciate women who do the same.
                                           

       But women have *already* moved towards the way men act. It's the
       only way we have been able to gain acceptance in *their* world.
       Women have been expected to aquire the male traits in order to
       succeed in business. There has been some movement for men to take
       on the more nurturing aspects of the female traits but it has met
       with some opposition. I would rather see more middle ground as
       Lorna was stating it.

       One off the wall example of what I am taking about is that it's
       OK for a woman to adopt the mode of dress that men have (to a
       point) but not at all allowable for a male to adopt a woman's
       mode of dress. It's becomming OK for women to enter male
       professions but you don't see too many males wanting to go into
       women's professions. I realise salary and social status have a
       lot to do with some of this but it'd be better if those
       differences didn't exist. liesl

    Re: .5
    
    >Women have been expected to aquire the male traits in order to
    >succeed in business. There has been some movement for men to take
    >on the more nurturing aspects of the female traits but it has met
    >with some opposition.
    
    In a perfect world, traits would not be classified by gender.
    (Actually, I really hate the phrase/idea of "women's qualities"
    or "male traits" because there's really no such thing.  No personal
    characteristic is limited to a specific gender.)

    Re .5, no traits are limited to a particular gender, but there are
    definitely traits that each sex has a monopoly on, so far in our
    society.  More men know how to repair cars than do women.  More
    women enjoy shopping for clothes and jewelry than do men.  More
    men enjoy watching football than do women.  More women enjoy sewing
    than do men.  In a perfect society this wouldn't be the case.  But,
    in this society it is the case, so I think that today we still have
    what could be called female or male traits.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .7
    
    Then I would call them "predominantly male" and "predominantly female"
    preferences, but I'm picky that way.  I also don't think it's a
    good idea to throw them into categories and then dare people to
    break the 'mold' of female/male by picking up a 'cross-gender' hobby
    or trait.  Just leave them all as simple hobbies and traits and
    let people pick up whatever they want with no hassle.

    Arpad,
    
    Given that most job related ablitites are not gender related,
    and that ones ability to think and learn new tasks and new roles
    has very little or nothing to do with ones X or Y chromosomes,
    I would be very suspicious of a job situation that was all male
    or all female on the grounds that those were the 'best' people
    for the job. I really don't believe, for example that women make
    the 'best' secretaries or nurses, or that men make the 'best'
    senior managers or restaurant chefs, or whatevers.
    
    When and if I see a situation where all or most of the people
    employed are one gender, I find that I am very suspicious of the
    arguement that 'those were the best people for the job'.
    
    Bonnie

     Having a 50/50 split between male and female workers in any occupation
    may or may not be ideal. To me, it is a complex equation involving
    INTEREST, ability, and suitability. If no women want to work on
    the back of garbage trucks, should we complain that not 50% of garbage
    people are not female? If no men want to be secretaries, should
    we feel bad that most secretaries are women? If both men and women
    want to be chair<person> of the board, but more women are qualified
    than men, should we complain when there are more women than men
    CEO's? (Let's not go down the rathole of "that's not how it is now")
    I'm just saying, numbers alone do not tell the whole story. 
    
    The Doctah

    re: .12
    
    � When did we develop this elitist attitude that hiring
    � "the most competent" is any better than "hiring the handicapped".
    
    I'm not certain, but I suspect it "started" when the first
    employer in a relatively free market economy needed help.  Having
    been both employer and employee, I find it real hard to support
    not hiring the "best" person for the job.  I tend to think of
    it as more "survivalist" than "elitest", particularly when there
    are competitors in the economy who believe the key to business
    survival and success is employee excellence (vs. "average"
    performance).
    
    I have a hunch that the problem has more to do with how we define
    "best" and I think it's slowly becoming clearer to employers that
    things traditionally referred to as "handicaps" are not same when
    it comes to job performance.  And it's becoming clear that hiring
    a person who is "qualifiable" (e.g. "trainable") may be a better long-
    term economic option than hiring one who's "qualified".  
    
    And if I go on any further, I'll start to ramble about business
    education and re-skilling and. . . 's my job, doncha know. . .
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Re .9, .10, .11, there is no way to judge what professions would
    only attract one sex in a non-sexist society.  In the past, and
    to an extent, even now, females grow up thinking of certain jobs
    as options and men grow up thinking of certain jobs as options.
     In our society, male high school graduates who don't go to college,
    and who are desperate for a job, may consider being a sanitation
    worker to be an option.  They will *not* consider being a secretary
    to be an option.  Even today, a male high school graduate showing
    up at Digital and looking for a job might be steered towards
    maintenance, or being a security guard, or working in
    shipping/receiving or in a stock room.  In these jobs, lowly though
    they may be to begin with, there is upward mobility without switching
    professions.  Female high school graduates will be invariably
    encouraged to go into secretarial or apply for secretarial positions
    if they have college no plans.  Coincidentally, there is no place to
    go except stay a secretary unless you make a lateral transfer to
    another type of job.  Also, why would a man choose being a secretary
    over being a sanitation worker, when sanitation workers make much
    more money.  As a normal course of life, boys are taughts skills,
    such as mechanics, carpentry, or plumbing, which can be used to
    obtain well paid jobs.  As a normal course of life, girls are not
    taught skills that society will pay well for.  I think we would
    have to live in a completely non-sexist society, where boys and
    girls are raised exactly the same way, and where certain jobs (such
    as secretary, waitress, social worker, elementary teacher, librarian,
    day care worker, nurse, and all jobs now predominately done by women)
    are paid equivalent to jobs normally done by men today such as auto
    mechanic, electrician, truck driver, sanitation worker, for about
    200 yrs. before we could ever determine that any job was predominately
    male or female dominated simply because one sex happened to enjoy
    doing those tasks more.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .11
    
    >If no women want to work on the back of garbage trucks, should
    >we complain that not 50% of garbage people are not female? If no
    >men want to be secretaries, should we feel bad that most secretaries
    >are women?
    
    If no women want to work on the back of garbage trucks, then I consider
    it highly unlikely that any men will want to, either.  How could
    a significant difference in interest be explained?  It can't be
    the product of social conditioning because we're assuming a non-sexist
    world.  It can't be a product of conditioning based on factors like
    race or economic class because the situation involves *all* women
    and men (no qualifying characteristics having been mentioned). 
    Since the only difference in this case is gender, that implies a
    gender-based difference in attitudes.  It has been pointed out
    elsewhere, and not yet debated, that women and men are really very
    similar in most of their attitudes, desires and other personal
    qualities.  Are you prepared to debate that men and women are more
    like separate species?  Or do you want to premise an argument on
    what seems to be a very improbable ratio?