| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 651.2 | Sorry about double entry, ignore 651.1 | TYCOBB::K_POTTRATZ | | Thu Jun 15 1989 16:51 | 5 |
| Sorry about my double entry. I had some network trouble.
Looking forward to your responses.
Kim
|
| 651.3 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Jun 15 1989 16:54 | 7 |
| I don't know whether to laugh or cry.....
the statistics *seem* ludicrous....if I had sources I could try
and believe them....
-Jody
|
| 651.4 | We shall overcome... | BEING::DUNNE | | Thu Jun 15 1989 17:33 | 10 |
| The rightist backlash seems to be getting really strong: this today
and yesterday Reagan's Supreme Court taking pot shots at Affirmative
Action. I didn't expect the power elite to give up and start being
nice, but this kind of thing makes me think we need more marches
in the street. It looks like we're going to have a fight on our
hands.
Eileen
|
| 651.5 | Don't confuse him with the facts... | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Thu Jun 15 1989 17:40 | 6 |
| WHAT A JERK!!
There, got that off my chest. I will definitely be adding my letter
to the (hopefully) piles that will be arriving at the National
Review...
|
| 651.7 | | LOWLIF::HUXTABLE | Who enters the dance must dance. | Thu Jun 15 1989 18:36 | 15 |
| What I noticed was the way he tended to cite a "special-case"
statistic and then made an emotional generalization from it.
For example, in countering myth #1 ("Most women are working")
he said newcasters claim that 57.6% of mothers are working,
then he picks at that figure, and apparently concludes that,
in fact, most women are not working or at least do not want
to work. Since I am a woman who is working and I am *not* a
mother, I resent the conflation of working women with working
mothers. Furthermore, I know plenty of working women who
would readily respond that they do not *want* to work--but
they're still working right now.
Bleah!
-- Linda
|
| 651.8 | I've heard this name before...see also 15.88 | SKYLRK::OLSON | Partner in the Almaden Train Wreck | Thu Jun 15 1989 18:59 | 12 |
| I am a subscriber to National Review (hey, New Republic too...I like to
keep tabs on idealogues.) Both publications are known to provide space
to people on the fringes, with their associated fringe agendas. What
most amused me about this article is that I remember the author's name
from...here! Nicholas Davidson has been cited (though not recently) as
having "...proven with definitive analysis that what you believe is
bogus as hell..." right here in womannotes (342.143). Sorry for the
reminder of such a negative note, but its in here. Seems like we all
now have the chance to see what Russ found so impressive...and to
decide for ourselves. I know what I think ;-).
DougO
|
| 651.9 | so he says | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Thu Jun 15 1989 20:19 | 10 |
|
I've had friends who were day care mothers. To say they don't work
is ludicrous. But then I don't suppose he's ever cared for 5 or 6
young children.
I also question the divorce statistic. I don't believe who files
for the divorce tells you who caused it. I know too many older
women who's husbands have left them to start a new family with a
younger wife. liesl
|
| 651.10 | | ACESMK::POIRIER | Be a Voice for Choice! | Fri Jun 16 1989 11:35 | 25 |
|
>average, earn more than women. So far from being something to be
>embarrassed about, this wage gap is evidence of freedom. Conversely,
>the rapid shrinkage of the wage gap from 41 per cent to 30 per cent
>since the mid Seventies is presumptive evidence of coercion
>discrimination.
Perhaps the wage gap decrease is a sign of freedom - more men choosing
lower paying, more flexible jobs so they can be with their children
more! Or maybe even some men stay home! Gasp - what a concept.
RE: Regarding the fact that men work harder, thus die younger. I read
recently a report that studied this fact. They expected to find high
corporate women who worked just as hard as men in the same position to
die at a much younger age, similar to their male counterparts. To their
suprise the women still lived longer. Their conclusion was either
women's bodies were better able to handle stress (a better built
machine ;-)) or that women just new how to cope with stress better.
RE: .0 The whole article is a bunch of garbage.
Suzanne
|
| 651.11 | Right On!! (lie) | PHENIX::SANTUCCI | | Fri Jun 16 1989 11:40 | 7 |
| I thought that the article was right on the money!! It's about
time somebody showed these crazed radical feminists just who is
in charge here. Yeah, and if you believe that there's a bridge
in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. This is the kind of article
that give us guys a bad name to you gals.
Tony_who_is_a_guy_and_can't_believe_what_he_just_read
|
| 651.12 | Buckley must have been asleep | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | I'll pick a white rose with Plantagenet. | Fri Jun 16 1989 12:31 | 18 |
| Yes, that writer seems to have a bit of trouble with his definitions.
He seems to think "woman" means "mother with children under 18 living
at home". He seems to think that poor conditions in day care are
not in any way definable as a "crisis". He seems to think that
"violence" means only "killing". He even seems to think that
63� means 70�!
He misses the entire divorce problem: The average ex-husband's standard
of living goes up and the average ex-wife's standard of living goes
down. Instead he looks at who files, while ignoring the entire
possibility that the person who files is the injured party. (Ever
know of an abandonning spouse who filed for divorce?)
He can't think that child abuse means child sexual abuse, but I can't
imagine what he does think it is in order to come up with his bizarre
numbers.
Ann B.
|
| 651.13 | Think sarcasm would work? | NAAD::ADAMS | | Fri Jun 16 1989 12:37 | 17 |
| Well, folks -- I think I'm going to write my letter and congratulate
this turkey on his sense of humor...how when I first read it, I
was angry -- then incredulous that the author would write about
lying with statistics by doing the same thing himself -- then wondering
how he managed to be preposterous in EVERY paragraph -- and finally
enlightened -- NObody could be that consistantly absurd by accident.
Who knows, if I'm lucky, I'll offend him, and provoke him into
"defending himself". HA!! Fat chance. Mebbe I'll throw in some
of the "hours spent doing housework and child care" statistics (with
reference, of course) and ask how many men they interviewed want
to work full time outside the house.
Sigh. A definite addition to the "alive and well".
-- Peg
|
| 651.14 | I'm soooooooo MAD | 2EASY::PIKET | It Might As Well Be Spring | Fri Jun 16 1989 13:35 | 20 |
|
What an idiot!
First, the idea that if most women don't want to work (even if true), then
no women should work, is idiotic. Reminds me of what some loser in another
notesfile said, about how women didn't have the right to vote for 150 years
because most women didn't want it.
Secondly, by stating the idea that "more divorces mean women
have to work," and then telling us that "we must make divorce less attractive
to women," he is saying that we should keep women's wages low so they will be
trapped into staying with their husbands. What a despicable idea.
Thirdly, if kids in daycare are screwed up, then how about having the
_father_ stay home with them? Why is it the mother's obligation only?
I could go on and on. What an SOB.
Roberta
|
| 651.15 | this clown is a manipulator | MPGS::HAMBURGER | Take Back America | Fri Jun 16 1989 15:47 | 16 |
| There is nothing in the world that could make me defend this IDIOT but
You are forgetting how statistics are gathered. Be upset at his misuse
of statistical gathewring techniques used to discredit women not at
the statistics used to discredit women. That to me is more reprehensible
Q. Would you rather work for a living or be independently wealthy and
never work again?
A. I would never work again.
ask the above question and statisticly you'll find 92.3% of all those would
rather not work :-} :-} :-}
A letter to this clown is in order. Thanks for the address.
Amos
|
| 651.16 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Sun Jun 18 1989 00:03 | 114 |
| Well, I'm terrible at writing letters but much better at writing notes.
Feel free to borrow any ideas below:
>Of the 57.6 per cent of "working mothers," some are working part time
>only, leaving an actual residue of 41.2 per cent who work full time.
And the statement is that "most women are now working." In order for
the objection to be valid, he would have to be disputing the claim that
"most women are now working full time."
>mothers who work from their homes; mothers who help out with a family
>business or farm; mothers with flexible hours (such as some airline
>schedules that involve only two days of intensive flying per week);
>and mothers who babysit the children of other mothers.
These are all consistent with the traditional definition of work, which
implies a measurable contribution to the economy. A business is a
business, regardless of the location of its headquarters. Any employee
who works for a business is a worker. Anyone who works is a worker,
regardless of the regularity of their hours. Women who provide daycare
run a business. All in all, I find his objections paltry.
>Millions of American housewives would be astonished to learn that the
>government classifies them as "working women."
Most assuredly they would be astonished to have their contributions
recognized, since the traditional way of measuring "work" by measuring
economic contribution completely ignores the services provided by the
average housewife.
>In reality, nine out of ten American women consistently report that
>they do not desire full-time employment outside the home.
As opposed to doing what? Nothing at all? I'd certainly enjoy a life
of ease.
>The myth of the day-care crisis also rests on the myth that "day care
>is at least as good as home care."
I'm afraid I don't follow the connection. The day-care crisis, I
thought, was the lack of adequate, affordable day care. This does not
necessarily mean that day care is equivalent to home care; it only
means that day care is a necessity when no parent is home full-time.
He then attacks the quality of day care. This has no bearing at all on
whether a day-care crisis exists. In fact, it would seem to support
the premise that securing adequate, affordable day care is, in fact, a
significant difficulty.
>While such a man does indeed deserve our condemnation, he is a
>statistical rarity, for more than 70 per cent of divorces of couples
>with children under 18 are instigated by the wife.
Well, what would *you* do if your husband left you for a 20-year-old
bimbo? Anyway, he's assuming that a husband is the victim when a woman
instigates a divorce; I would like to see this substantiated.
>"Well, if women are leaving men, it must be because they deserve it."
>This leads us to:
Not necessarily. Family violence is not the only reason for divorce,
after all, and not the only reason that a man might deserve to be left.
And of course, we're assuming that all the women who file for divorce
are the ones doing the leaving -- yet another point I'd like to see
substantiated.
>Within the home, male protectiveness and chivalry - obnoxious to
>feminists - appear largely to cancel men's violent propensities relative
>to women's.
Ah, so women have no sterling qualities that might cancel their violent
propensities relative to men?
Actually, none of his objections address the question of whether there
is currently an epidemic of male domestic violence. If domestic
violence as perpetrated by men has risen significantly over the last
few years, then it is, by definition, an epidemic.
>A more recent figure, released by the Census Bureau in the spring of
>1988, is 70 cents on the dollar.
So you see, women are *not* economically discriminated against....
>Thus feminists tacitly admit that men work harder than women.
Actually, if men have more significant jobs than women (jobs that
involve more responsibility), that would explain their higher levels of
stress. So it's not that men work harder than women, it's that men
have harder jobs than women, in general. So his hypothesis is not the
only reasonable explanation.
>Such being the case, it would be incredible if (in a free society)
>they did not also earn more.
If we attribute their stress to the nature of their jobs, rather than
their efforts, it's also not surprising to find they earn more. This
explanation supports the belief that women are discriminated against
economically.
>If it's true that most women prefer to stay home and to raise their
>own children
Actually, the previously mentioned survey indicated that women
preferred not to work out of the home; nothing was said about raising
children. Makes me very curious to see the survey questions.
I can't say I'm at all impressed with the author's analytical
abilities. Of course, slipshod analysis is a common failing when one
has a particular point to prove. Since one is already convinced of
one's beliefs, one is satisfied with less-than-rigorous arguments in
their favor.
[It's times like these when I feel like I might enjoy being a history
professor after all.]
|
| 651.17 | Unbelievable! | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sun Jun 18 1989 07:18 | 105 |
| Pretty amazing article, alright. The gaping holes in its logic
are almost amusing. He must think his intended audience is
stupid (which makes me wonder who, precisely, his intended audience
is.)
As others have mentioned, he tries to refute assertions about
"WOMEN" by narrowing his definition of women to include ONLY
those of us with children under 18. Even after he *furthur*
narrows the definition of "working women" to mean "women with
children under 18 who work full time," he STILL only gets the
figure down to a 41.2 percent. Had he included ALL women who
work, the figure would have proved the modest assertion (labeled
a myth by him) that "most women work."
Regarding his point about whether or not women want to work...
I would be interested in seeing the precise way that "nine out
of ten women REPORT" that they do not desire full-time employment
outside the home (and I'd be even more interested to see how
MEN would respond to the same question.)
As far as his argument against the "day-care crisis," as Chelsea
pointed out, he does more to PROVE there is a crisis than prove
there isn't one! Instead of addressing why there is or is not
a day-care crisis, he makes an argument about whether or not
day-care is as good as home care. In his argument that day-care
is *not* as good as home care, he offers support for the argument
that there *IS* a day-care crisis.
Regarding "the divorce revolution means that women have to work..."
He cites some unsubstantiated statistics about what percentage
of women "instigate" divorce for couples with children under
18. (Again, he likes to narrow his definitions down if it makes
his numbers look more dramatic.)
If his claim about women not working (and not WANTING to work)
is true, then why would women deliberately put ourselves in
the position of work becoming a *NECESSITY* by instigating
divorce?
He says "if we wish actually to reduce the incidence of divorce,
we must concentrate on making divorce less attractive to women."
If women don't work and don't WANT to work, why does he think
the idea of divorce is "attractive to women" AT ALL?
Regarding domestic violence... He narrows his definition (this
time) to violence involving lethal weapons. As one who has
experienced a violent domestic situation, the implication seems
to be that I could have killed my ex-husband with a gun as a way
of defending myself against the blow that broke my nose.
Hey, had I had the time to grab a gun and shoot him before his
blow struck, I would have had the time to DUCK (or to talk him
out of it, possibly.)
As for guns in our house, the only one we had was a powerful
beebee gun (with which HE shot ME point blank as an excrutiatingly
painful joke.) The last thing I wanted in our house was a REAL
gun.
None of the violence in our house (over a 4 year period) was
ever reported to the police. Most domestic violence goes
unreported (yet the statistics about physical and emotional
abuse, in addition to those of murder, are alarming!) Davidson's
denials about it are insidious and downright dangerous.
As for his attack on the idea of economic discrimination against
women, he does not seem to deny that it exists, but rather
simply justifies it with more statistical manipulation and word
games. He defines "stress" as "working harder," which is NOT
synonymous at all!
"Stress" relates more to the possible consequences of one's
work decisions. Even if a person sits with her/his feet up
on the desk for the entire day except for ONE MOMENT where
s/he has to make a decision that will affect millions of dollars,
the person is a candidate for stress-related problems. Does
the person work HARDER than someone who spends the entire work
day ON HER/HIS FEET (the way MANY women do)? NO!
Men are paid more (and probably die sooner) because our society
most often *trusts* men in the kinds of responsible jobs that
induce stress (and pay big bucks.) Women are most often trusted
to do the necessary backbreaking work that pays very little
(because it fits in to society's idea of women's inherent worth,
or lack thereof.)
> The Right should start to develop and agressively promote
> its own agenda on these issues, centering on the restoration
> of paternal authority, the discouragement of single motherhood,
> and the revalidation of sex distinctions in all areas of life
> where they are necessary and beneficial.
This aggressive promotion is already evident in a variety of
notesfiles here at Digital. Of course, the people who do the
promoting DENY that they are among those who want to hold women
back (or put us back where we were.) At least Davidson is open
enough to admit (almost outright) that his goal is to resubjugate
women.
As insidious and dishonest as his argument is, what I find hopeful
is the fact that he had to go such *lengths* to find any fault
at all with our movement! It reaffirms for me the tremendous
degree of validity that the women's movement has always had.
Not that I ever doubted it for a minute, of course!! ;-)
|
| 651.18 | People believe these things! | RADIA::PERLMAN | | Sun Jun 18 1989 08:42 | 37 |
| Alarming, indeed. It's easy to convince people with twisted logic.
A few points -- some of the replies imply that men get paid more
because they have the kind of jobs where decisions are more important.
What about nurses? They constantly make life and death decisions,
and yet are not highly paid, I believe. Also, I think a lot of why
men die younger is due to smoking. I believe women are "closing
the gap" by moving towards smoking as much as men. (progress?)
Probably there are other factors as well, like eating high fat diets, and
being the aggressive angry type that tailgate and curse while driving.
As for daycare -- I think it's a feature that kids get exposed to
each other's germs. When you first enroll your kid in daycare, you
expect that they'll be sick pretty constantly the first year or so
(and share all their germs with the rest of the family). But I believe
that "builds up their immune system", and they're healthier after that.
At least that was my experience with my 2 kids -- sick a lot at first,
and neither has missed more than a day or two per year due to sickness
since starting school. Kids who never went to daycare are instead
sick a lot the first time they really mix with the general public (i.e.
when they start school).
As for "aggression" -- what does that mean? Again, in my own
experience (I don't believe statistics, so even if I had some at my
fingertips I wouldn't believe some other source was more valid than
personal anecdotes) children from daycare centers learn to share
better. They are also more assertive, adventurous,
and outgoing. I believe these lead to good things in later life.
The daycare crisis isn't that kids get ruined physically
and emotionally by being left in daycare
centers, but that the good daycare centers that take infants have
waiting lists years long, and are not really economically viable (they
pay ridiculously low wages and are so expensive most people can't
afford them).
All those categories of people he lumps in as not really working
are incredible. Part timers? Those with strange schedules?
Involved in a family owned business?
|
| 651.19 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Sun Jun 18 1989 09:06 | 39 |
| RE: .18
> A few points -- some of the replies imply that men get paid
> more because they have the kind of jobs where decisions are
> more important. What about nurses? They constantly make
> life and death decisions, and yet are not highly paid, I believe.
Agreed! They make *very* important decisions, and work very
hard indeed (while not being relatively highly paid.)
Again, the pay matches the "perceived worth" of the gender that
dominates the profession (in spite of the fact that many nurses
have Bachelors Degrees in Nursing.) As I understand it, the
nursing profession as a whole is suffering severe shortages
now because more women are choosing non-traditional professions
because they pay more than traditionally female professions.
Hopefully, this will drive the salaries UP for nurses, but in
our stubborn culture, who knows how long it will take.
> All those categories of people he lumps in as not really
> working are incredible. Part timers? Those with strange
> schedules? Involved in a family owned business?
Speaking of "those with strange schedules"... The majority
of male and female hardware engineers, software specialists,
and customer response representatives who work in my district
are on "special work weeks" (either 3 12-hour days, or 4 10-hour
days per week.)
According to Davidson's definition of "people who work," NONE
of us would qualify under it (male or female) although the vast
majority of us are educated career professionals (and we do
a *huge* business in customer support for Digital.)
Of course, Davidson wouldn't dream of eliminating men from the
class of "people who work" (unless they REALLY don't), so he
would only consider our *women* engineers, specialists and CRR's
as not being considered "people who work." *sigh*
|
| 651.20 | that's some catch... | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Mon Jun 19 1989 00:30 | 11 |
| re:.16 (et al.)
>>> So it's not that men work harder than women, it's that men
have harder jobs than women, in general...
thanks to ms. chelsea for this little tidbit of enlightenment. i've never
felt i had a good refutation for the argument that 'men make more than
women because they work harder'. it's only when you take that extra step to
try to figure out why men might appear to work harder that you start to
suspect that women continue to be denied positions of responsibility because
they don't hold positions of responsibility.
|
| 651.22 | ? | ULTRA::WRAY | John Wray, Secure Systems Development | Tue Jun 20 1989 19:43 | 30 |
| Re:<<< Note 651.21 by TROA02::DEAK >>>
>... only then can the male bashing and manipulation of
>statistics to suit their (radical feminist) desires be a thing of the past.
> ...
>...abuses in the form of male bashing, stereotyping, and statistical
>manipulation all for the express purpose of domination over male by
>females while paying lip service to equality.
I can only conclude from the above that in Ontario there exists a
sinister group of people dedicated to bashing males, stereotyping (does
that require two keyboards?), and manipulating statistics, all for "the
express purpose of domination over males by females". This group
apparently has adopted the name "Feminist" to describe their members.
This is unfortunate, since the term has been in use for some time in
the rest of the world to refer to a group with entirely different
beliefs and goals. As such it can only cause confusion, and indeed has
- I think most contributors to this conference are under impression
that the article in .0 referred to the "global" feminist movement,
rather than the new group that Mr. Deak has discovered. Perhaps the
possibility of confusion should be pointed out to the publishers of the
article?
I would like to congratulate Arpad for the research that he has carried
out which has led to the discovery of this shadowy group, and I look
forward to further news of their activities.
Meanwhile, back to the discussion of attacks on feminism (of the
more normal sort)....
|
| 651.23 | why are you here? | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Tue Jun 20 1989 21:14 | 5 |
|
re:.21
it must be nice to have so many friends that one is able to antagonize
dozens of people with impunity...
|
| 651.26 | | RAINBO::TARBET | I'm the ERA | Wed Jun 21 1989 11:12 | 12 |
|
<** Moderator Plea **>
I think Arpad is making a good point about not letting discussion of
this topic degenerate into snide personal shots. I urge everyone to
avoid personal commentary and instead either respond carefully to the
content of what was said or, if you believe that to address the content
will be profitless for some reason, *DO NOT RESPOND AT ALL*.
Please?
=maggie
|
| 651.27 | let me say this about that | ULTRA::ZURKO | Even in a dream, remember, ... | Wed Jun 21 1989 11:15 | 9 |
| As an avowed knee-jerker, I think that all humans react poorly (at first) to
criticism. I think one healthy way to combat that is to recognise it. I think
insulting that human tendancy means we'll pretend it doesn't exist (at least
the less strong we that like to pretend we don't have insultable traits; people
like me).
The rest of it is the same old entertaining reading we all love in womannotes
:-).
Mez
|
| 651.29 | I belong to the "other" feminists | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Wed Jun 21 1989 12:23 | 31 |
| Arpad,
Can you explain a couple of things to me:
1) In what way are the assertions (called myths by Mr. Davidson)
in .0 "male bashing"?
2) How is wanting to have equal rights (for example, equal pay
for equal work) "elitism"?
3) How is making sweeping accusations like "feminists manipulate
statistics" any different than said manipulations?
You know, if I were going to write an article that listed what,
say socialists, believe and/or claim, I would probably ask some
socialists what they believe and quote my sources. It makes me
very uncomfortable to read a blanket "feminists claim..." or
"feminists say..." when (a) it is unsubstantiated and (b) it does
not jibe with anything I, or any other "self-admitted" feminist
I know, believes.
-Tracy
|
| 651.30 | the article was not a call for equality | SELL3::JOHNSTON | weaving my dreams | Wed Jun 21 1989 12:26 | 26 |
| Hello again, Arpad,
I do not question your right to you views on feminism, although I do
not agree with them.
I do have one problem with your support of the NR article and its
author, though. Both here and elsewhere you have been most vocal in
stating that 'True Equality' is your goal. I heartily support such a
goal.
The author of the article is NOT in favour of equality existing between
the sexes and states in his article that the Right should mobilise to
restore the Patriarchy.
I would think that, given your Socialist leanings, you would find
Patriarchal Elitism as repugnant as you perceive Feminist Elitism to
be.
You stated in .25 that you do not know the National Review. Well, it
didn't take a ton of daring to publish that article in that
publication. [anymore it would take daring to publish an attack on the
Patriarchy in the feminist press]. It is a publication proud to be
acknowledged as the place for traditional, well-upholstered people of
the Right to read up in comfort on the Issues of the Day.
Ann
|
| 651.31 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Jun 21 1989 12:48 | 20 |
| I've been driving my sister to various colleges the past week, so I've
fallen into a bit of a collegiate perspective. From that perspective,
the article is a healthy thing. Ideas *should* be challenged. If they
are solid, they will withstand the confrontation. If they are not
solid, they should be reshaped. The part about "sacred cows" reminds
me that people sometimes hold beliefs that are reactions rather than
opinions. By defending our beliefs, we can intellectually validate
something we emotionally "feel" is true.
Personally, I don't disagree so much with the content of "traditional
feminism" as the slant or spin. For example, I'm well aware that women
have long been dominated by men and deprived of autonomy and power.
However, whenever I hear someone invoke "the patriarchy," I think of
the Illuminati, the Jewish Cabal and the other bogeymen of conspiracy
theories. As I see it, the phrase takes a collection of cultural and
psychological traits and institutionalizes them, radically changing the
nature of the beast. To me, "the patriarchy" implies an organization
with conscious intent; I don't believe that's an accurate
representation. Anyway, that's the sort of distinction I find debate
useful for.
|
| 651.32 | lies, damn lies, and | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Wed Jun 21 1989 15:03 | 31 |
| re:.25
>>Re: .23 (JWhite)
>> -< why are you here? >-
> Should I not be here? Why are you here?
i don't question whether or not you should be here...it's a free country
and as free a notesfile as our dear moderators can make it...i wonder why
you are here when you apparently don't pay attention to what people say.
it seemed (and seems) to me that after nearly 20 replies discussing the
use/misuse of statistics, some not from a strictly feminist perspective,
that your remarks, and the way they were framed (as if to say, 'well i'm
going to show you people, i'm going to write a counter-letter') were
intended to be inflammatory. hence my admittedly sarcastic and hostile
remarks. unfortunately, now you hide behind the shield of intellectual
discourse, 'please discuss only the intellectual concepts, not my obvious
antagonistic agenda'.
well, let me pick one:
> The major, if not whole, basis of the article and my letter in support
> of it was a caution to readers of the the abuse of statistics by a
> special interest group, in this case feminists, to further their own
> goals.
i would suggest that the major basis of the article was to refute feminism
at all cost, up to and including the abuse of statistics. and i would ask
whose goals are being promoted by the writer of the article?
|
| 651.35 | cheating is cheating | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Wed Jun 21 1989 17:58 | 29 |
| re:.34
>Where do you get off saying that I intended to write a flammatory [sic]
>letter?
i clearly explained why i thought your note might be inflammatory. i
still can think of no other interpretation.
>I, and other readers I am sure, would much rather discuss the issues.
the issue is that this author took feminists to task for manipulating
statistics and, as you say yourself,
> [the author] is just as guilty of manipulation as those
>feminists who (he claims) have done the same.
now, for some reason, you felt it necessary to praise the author for
what seems fairly clearly to be blatent hypocrisy. why would you do
this, unless you are sympathetic toward his anti-women goals and, more
importantly, feel his tactics are acceptable?
>Each person gets out of an article a different perception of the author's
>intent based on various factors such as their own biases, beliefs, etc.
>I've got mine and you've got yours.
i don't get it; does that mean we're both right? that there is no further
need for discussion?
|
| 651.36 | Un(a)bashed male response | ULTRA::WRAY | John Wray, Secure Systems Development | Wed Jun 21 1989 23:26 | 72 |
| RE: <<< Note 651.33 by TROA02::DEAK >>>
>> 1) In what way are the assertions (called myths by Mr. Davidson)
>> in .0 "male bashing"?
>
>The only way that I can answer you is to ask you in what way are these
>myths not male bashing?
From .0:
> Myth #1: "Most women ar now working."
No obvious "bashing" content in that one, male-directed or otherwise.
As previous replies have pointed out, the validity of this is wholly
dependent on one's definition of "work", so unless such a definition is
supplied it is meaningless.
> A subsidiary myth is tht most women want to work.
Again, a statement about women. Males have not been mentioned so far.
Actually, I find this rather hard to believe. I can accept that, given a
straight choice, most women would rather be economically independent.
This isn't the same as wanting to work. I could also believe that the
majority of women (again given a straight choice) would rather have the
_option_ of working.
> Myth #2: "There is a day-care crisis."
Doesn't seem to "bash" males (unless, of course males are in general in
more of a position to do something about this than women, in which case it
is more of a plea for action rather than a "bash").
> Myth #3: "The divorce revolution means that women have to work."
Again, no apparent "male-bashing". If the phrase "the divorce
revolution" means the rising divorce rate, it seems to be a fairly obvious
truth - If I have no partner who is willing to provide for me economically,
I must either work, go on welfare, or starve. This is true for both sexes.
> Myth #4: "There is an epidemic of male family violence."
At last some male bashing, (literally, unfortunately). I don't think
that male family violence is a pre-requisite for feminism, though. As far
as I can tell, feminism is much more concerned with achieving equality of
economic and political power than physical power. Feminist groups simply
provide a natural support system for those unfortunate enough to be caught
up in such situations.
> Myth #5: "Women suffer from economic discrimination."
No male bashing going on there.
OK, we have one instance of male-bashing out of five "Myth"s, and that one
instance is verbal male-bashing, directed at specific males who go in for
physical "bashing" of their own. Hardly seems to indicate that the bashing
of males is high on the agenda of the typical feminist, even in the eyes of
the author of the article in .0.
Now "Establishment-bashing" I could agree with (in that anyone who seeks to
alter things is presumably unhappy with the status-quo, and expression of
this unhappiness could be taken as mild "bashing"). However this does not
equate to "male" bashing unless one views "the establishment" and "males"
as synonyms. There may well be a minority of feminists who feel that.
There are certainly male non-feminists who adhere to such a belief, and
thus see feminism as a direct attack on themselves.
Incidentally, what do the quotation marks enclosing the "Myth"s in .0
signify? Who precisely is being quoted here? Or is the author merely
postulating that some feminist somewhere might have said something along
these lines once?
John
|
| 651.38 | gone fishin' | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Thu Jun 22 1989 15:02 | 22 |
| re:.37
>I do not praise the author for, as you put it, his hypocrisy, but rather
>for his courage in trying to expose the myths of feminism. As you will
>note,, I have written numerous times before that I do not support his
>manipulation of statistics either.
since you obviously believe the 'myths of feminism' are true, this must
make sense to you; let me remind you, however, that
as has been mentioned before, it takes the courage of a turnip to write
this kind of article in the national review.
as virtually everyone here has agreed, the author manipulated the
statistics to make his case; under normal, rational conditions this would
invalidate his argument.
i merely submit to you that he did not do that for which you say you
praise him: he showed no courage and certainly did not prove his case.
hence, assuming you to be a rational person, my speculation as to your
underlying agenda.
|
| 651.39 | Survey says... | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Thu Jun 22 1989 15:13 | 32 |
| Arpad,
1) As has been pointed out, the assertions (aka "myths") in .0
do not "lay the blame for all of womankind's ills at the feet
of men," as you claim. They are simply assertions that do not
assign cause or blame. To mark the statement "Most women are
now working" as "subtle male-bashing" seems to be, er, presumptuous?
2) You make an interesting point in .34 that, in our society, power
equals money, and that if women achieve economic equality, other
things will follow. Agreed. You realize, of course, that
the letter you just supported specifically _opposes_ economic
equality?
3) It seems as though you are saying that all use of statistics
is necessarily manipulation. And that you therefore rely on
your personal experiences. (This by the way is still the use
of statistics, but with a sample size of one.) Did I understand
you correctly on this?
4) Regarding your sweeping statements...I am not asking you to
prove a thing. I would like to express my surprise that you
are so confident in declaring what "feminists say" when I know
you're familiar with at least a few dozen (electronically at
least) who _don't_ say those things. I guess I'm saying that,
based on my experiences--one of which is _being_ a feminist--
I believe you are very wrong in what you claim feminists want.
-Tracy
|
| 651.41 | | ULTRA::WRAY | John Wray, Secure Systems Development | Thu Jun 22 1989 17:45 | 13 |
| RE: <<< Note 651.40 by TROA01::DEAK >>>
>But if feminism's major thrust (as recited from feminists whose names I
>cannot remember) is to ensure equal rights (et al) with men and to tear
>down the Patriarchy, then is this not saying that males are the cause for
>injustices perpetrated against females?
I don't understand how your conclusion follows from the premise. If
you feel that it does, could you explain, being careful to distinguish
between the word "males" used in the sense "some group of people who
happen to be male" and "all male humans".
John
|
| 651.42 | | LOWLIF::HUXTABLE | Who enters the dance must dance. | Thu Jun 22 1989 18:50 | 20 |
| re .40 (Arpad)
>But if feminism's major thrust (as recited from feminists whose names I
>cannot remember) is to ensure equal rights (et al) with men and to tear
>down the Patriarchy, then is this not saying that males are the cause for
>injustices perpetrated against females?
Nope. Saying "the group of people on top of the hierarchical
power structure can be distinguished by the fact that nearly
all of them happened to be born with X, Y, and Z, those on
the bottom by the fact that were born without X, Y, or Z, and
most members of the group distinguished by XYZ have easier
access to the power structure (if they want it) than those
outside of the group XYZ" does *not* mean that some/all
members of group XYZ caused the power structure or the
conditions that took them to the top of it. It *does* imply
that fewer members of group XYZ will be motivated to change
the conditions than those persons who are not members.
-- Linda
|
| 651.43 | For what it is worth department | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Thu Jun 22 1989 19:35 | 6 |
| National Public radio tonite, as part of a program on child care
indicated that 60% of all mothers of preschool children are in
the workforce. This to me implies more than just working from home
or baby sitting.
Bonnie
|
| 651.44 | Letter to the editor | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Mon Jun 26 1989 14:47 | 81 |
| June 26, 1989
Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.
Editorial Department
National Review
150 East 35th Street
New York, NY 10016
Dear Mr. Buckley,
Re: "The Myths of Feminism"
by Nicholas Davidson
May 19, 1989; p. 44
Vol. XLI, No. 9
Dear Mr. Buckley,
Not surprisingly, Nicholas Davidson fails miserably in his attempt to
debunk what he terms the "myths of feminism." In fact, he fails to
even address his arguments to the so-called myths.
He questions that "most women are now working." But he does not
discuss most women. Instead he points out that, of one subset of
women (mothers of children under 18), some work in child care or in
arrangements other than five, "nonintensive" days in an office that
someone else owns. This may demonstrate that Davidson does not
personally value the work of this portion of working mothers, but it
does not demonstrate that most women don't work.
Davidson also questions whether "there is a daycare crisis." Those
who make that claim also define what they mean by it: a demand for
good, affordable daycare that greatly exceeds the supply. He offers no
evidence to refute that this crisis exists.
The next assertion that Davidson questions is whether "the divorce
revolution means that more women have to work." Again, he offers no
evidence that this isn't true. Instead, he discusses who files for
divorce and not whether the increasing numbers of divorced women have
to work to support themselves.
His fourth "myth" is that there is an "epidemic of male family
violence." His unsubstantiated claims that women commit more acts of
violence does not negate the fact that excessive incidents of
violence by men occur against family members.
Finally, he terms the assertion that "women suffer from economic
discrimination" the Big Lie. Yet, he does not argue that this
assertion is a lie at all, apparently confirming it with his "70
cents on the dollar" figure. What he does argue is that it is
justified. But, as he undoubtedly knows, the fact that some health
problems affect more men than women in no way extrapolates to "all
men work harder than all women."
It seems that Mr. Davidson believes not that "most women are now
working" and "there is a daycare crisis" are untrue, but that they
_should_ be untrue. And that these facts and the fact there is
divorce and male family violence, will go away if women will just
withdraw from the work force, get married, raise children, and stay
married regardless of the circumstances. It seems he believes the
last point, economic discrimination, is justified in order to make
anything that deviates from his model "unattractive" to women.
But even if Davidson's "statistics" are accurate, he ignores many
facts: that not all women are mothers of children under 18; that some
women are still the victims of divorce; that violence does happen in
some "traditional" families; that not all two-parent families can
afford to live on one income. And, perhaps irrelevant to Mr.
Davidson, not all women want to stay home and raise children.
Feminism is hardly a sacred cow. Just look at the last three
presidential elections, or the appearance of such poorly constructed
and researched articles as this in national magazines. But the
battle for women and men to choose their own lives' work and to earn
a fair wage will persist. Because that is what America is all about--
the rights of the individual, not the least of which is the pursuit
of happiness.
Sincerely,
|
| 651.45 | Some Statistics | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Mon Jun 26 1989 15:00 | 37 |
|
For what it's worth, here are some statistics. Substantiated statistics.
From 14 years ago - and I doubt the number of women in the workforce
has decreased since then....if anything it seems to have increased.
-Jody
------------------------------------------------------------------
information from U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 1975.
9 out of 10 women will work at some time in their lives.
A majority of women work because of economic need. About three-fifths
of all women workers are single, widowed, divorced, or separated, or
have husbands whose earnings are less than $7000 per year.
Women workers are concentrated in low-paying dead end jobs. As a
result, the average woman worker earns less than three-fifths of what
a man does, even when both work full-time year-round.
Women are 77% of the clerical workers, but only 5% of all craft workers.
Among poor families, more than 2 out of 5 are headed by women.
59 percent of all women over the age of 18 are in the workforce.
Even if a woman marries, she can expect to work for 25 years.
13.9 million women with children are in the labor force.
Women widowed, divorced, or separated rose from 2.9 million to 6.7
million between 1940 and 1976.
Women who worked at year-round full-time jobs in 1974 earned only 57
cents for every dollar earned by men.
|
| 651.48 | opinion isn't always more valuable than fact | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Mon Jun 26 1989 17:10 | 23 |
| Arpad,
Re .40:
I got the distinct impression from your letter to the editor that
you agreed with the points the author made, but felt he did a poor
job of backing them up. In subsequent notes, you have shown that
you do not agree with many of the points. I think the following
is what many or most readers will get from your letter.
Re .40 and .47:
What the heck is your point in .47? You've already established
that any use of statistics to support a particular cause is already
suspect (as being "manipulated") in your book. Now statistics that
are simply stated and not used to "make a point" (such as those
offered by Jody) have no value? (And therefore, I guess, she has
no right to share them with us?)
Give me a break.
-Tracy
|
| 651.49 | oops | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Mon Jun 26 1989 17:12 | 2 |
| That was supposed to read: "I think the _former_ is what most..."
|
| 651.50 | | LOWLIF::HUXTABLE | Who enters the dance must dance. | Mon Jun 26 1989 19:23 | 26 |
| re .46 (Arpad Deak)
> ...It may likely be that fewer members of XYZ will be
> less motivated to change the "power structure", and perhaps as a result of
> that won't these fewer numbers run the risk of being washed with the same
> brush which paints the other members of XYZ which do not want change?...
Of course. That's human nature. One of the things humans
are very good at is perceiving/creating patterns and
categories to make the world around us more understandable.
A given member of group XYZ is more *likely* to want to
maintain the status quo than a non-member. No doubt there
are some (perhaps many, hopefully few) non-members of group
XYZ who feel *all* members of XYZ are interested in
maintaining the status quo. But not *all* non-members of XYZ
will perceive XYZ in such a monolithic way. And some of
those people will be just as incensed at being lumped with
"XYZ-haters" as some members of XYZ are at being lumped
together.
Am I making any sense? I chose to use the XYZ term so that
hopefully we could avoid some words that may have "loaded"
connotations for one or the other of us, but I'm finding that
it's getting unwieldy.
-- Linda
|
| 651.51 | | ULTRA::WRAY | John Wray, Secure Systems Development | Tue Jun 27 1989 00:25 | 42 |
| Re: <<< Note 651.46 by TROA02::DEAK >>>
> -< allocating blame by visual characteristics >-
> <<< Note 651.41 by ULTRA::WRAY >>>
> RE: <<< Note 651.40 by TROA01::DEAK >>>
>
>>But if feminism's major thrust (as recited from feminists whose names I
>>cannot remember) is to ensure equal rights (et al) with men and to tear
>>down the Patriarchy, then is this not saying that males are the cause for
>>injustices perpetrated against females?
>
> I don't understand how your conclusion follows from the premise. If
> you feel that it does, could you explain, being careful to distinguish
> between the word "males" used in the sense "some group of people who
> happen to be male" and "all male humans".
>
> John
>Re: .41 (John Wray)
>
>> I don't understand how your conclusion follows from the premise.
>
>It does not require a leap of faith of the smallest magnitude to see how
>the premise practically demands the conclusion.
That's not much of an explanation. Perhaps you didn't understand what
I asked in my reply. I'll rephrase it:
I don't understand your chain of reasoning. It seems to be based on
equating the "Patriarchy", "men" and "males" (the latter apparently
meaning "all male humans", although it is not entirely clear that you
have consistently inteded this interpretation). If you believe that
your inference is valid, please could you explain it to those of us for
whom it seems to require rather more than "a leap of faith of the
smallest magnitude". If your conversations with Linda and Tracy have
convinced you that the inference is actually invalid, then I will
understand should you choose not to defend it. Responding to a request
for expansion with a statement to the effect that "it's obvious" is not
at all helpful, though. It is merely rude.
John
|
| 651.53 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Jun 27 1989 16:15 | 59 |
| Re: .52
I think part of the difficulty here is the use of "feminist." You use
it to refer to what I think of as "traditional feminism" or perhaps the
"original feminism." There are plenty of women, many of them young,
who can reasonably be considered feminists yet are not at all
"traditional feminists." There's plenty of agreement on the basic
facts, but a wide variety of opinions on how to interpret and respond
to those facts. Sounds like any historical or societal phenomenon I've
ever heard of.
What are some of the basic facts? There's overwhelming historical
evidence that the vast majority of men have organized their societies
in such a way as to deprive women of power and self-government. (The
evidence of exceptions is so lacking that they may be assumed to be
statistically insignificant. If the evidence changes, then of course
the theories must take that into consideration.)
In the United States, the women's movement acheived significant national
standing around the 1820s, but women didn't receive the right to vote
until the 1920s. It took over 100 years of campaigning (plus all the
other years in which voting was a viable political concept) to acheive
something as basic and obvious as a vote. This demonstrates what I
call social inertia and it is a powerful force, indeed.
A long history of women as second-class citizens (if citizens at all)
and social inertia -- these, I think, are the basic facts.
>Males are being blamed for everything from racism (blamed on the white
>male: didn't racist white women ever exist?), to physical abuse (what?
>Women haven't hit husbands or abused children?) to various other areas
>(at the risk of sounding rude) too numerous to list here.
Almost all people live in a society in which men have had the
overwhelming share of power. Societies dominated by white men have had
significant impact on most non-white societies. When men run society,
men get blamed for the directions that society takes. Men had far more
power to effect change than women, so even if we take a "fair"
approach, men must shoulder a far greater share of the blame for
allowing such things to not only come about, but continue. That is the
societal analysis. Then there's the individual analysis -- that each
person must shoulder the blame for his or her own actions (or lack of
action). Unfortunately, individual analysis is a rather dead-end
approach. A conclusion for an isolated case is an isolated conclusion
and therefore has limited usefulness. Societal analysis is more
useful. Notice that, while men are obligated by their power to take a
larger share of responsibility, there is nothing which states that the
responsibility must be divided equally among all men. Societal
analysis is unfair in that it examines groups, rather than individuals.
However, grouping and charting points of data is what gives the data
meaning.
So you see, I don't think it's possible for any theory of social
organization and dynamics to be truly fair in its treatment of any
individual of the society. In a feminist analysis of society, I don't
see how it can be possible to treat men "equally" with women since the
basic premise of feminism is that men and women are *not* equal in the
context of society. In another context -- for instance, the context of
personal development -- men and women could be examined as equal.
|
| 651.54 | XYZ and ZYX might not be a bad start | ULTRA::ZURKO | Even in a dream, remember, ... | Tue Jun 27 1989 16:36 | 16 |
| I'm rereading Shulamith Firestone's "The Dialectic of Sex", and was shocked to
find that I had been lulled into believing she _would_ equate Patriarchal
Society with men. She didn't (I should have known. I've been reading this
notesfile much too long.). And she certainly was (and perhaps is) a radical
feminist (calls for the abolition of the patriarchal family, for instance,
which really caused _my_ knees to twitch). What she does do, and what may cause
feminism a great deal in PR, is equate certain things (science, molding
reality) with the patriarchy or with 'traditionally male values', and certain
other things (pure art, imagination, emotions) with 'traditionally female
values' (she does touch on the matriarchy, but doesn't wax poetic about it at
all either). _And_ her thesis is, it's time to put the two halves together.
Maybe we should come up with new terms for the way of living that has been
imposed on men, and the way of living that has been imposed on women, in
western society.
Mez
|
| 651.55 | The Patriarchy != only males | VIA::BAZEMORE | Barbara b. | Tue Jun 27 1989 19:40 | 33 |
| re .52
> b) Feminism speaks out (blames?) what is referred to as "The Patriarchy"
> which, from what I understand is the male dominated society (power base).
So far, so good.
>c) Feminism speaks out about the injustices perpetrated upon females by
>society, which is refered to as "The Patriarchy" by feminists. Is this
>society different from that which they have described as "The Patriarchy"?
>If so then the difference has never been explained insofar as feminist
>goals are involved.
I would hope that the society that we live in is evolving away from
Patriarchy to a society where gender is not an automatic classification
device.
>I have some questions for you John. Does "The Patriarchy" not refer to a
>male group? Who are the feminists blaming for their perceived inequality?
>Who are females unequal with? Is our society patriarchal?
No, "The Patriarchy" refers to a particular type of society, it includes
all people living by that society's standards. In a patriarchal
or matriarchal society an individual's gender helps determine their
starting place in society's power structure. Each gender has a set
of rules that society encourages them to obey. The patriarchal
society rules for females prevent them from acheiving positions
in the power structure equal to males.
The feminists are blaming the rules of the patriarchal society for
the inequality between men and women. We want to change the rules.
Barbara b.
|
| 651.56 | Ramblings on "the patriarchy" | LOWLIF::HUXTABLE | Who enters the dance must dance. | Tue Jun 27 1989 19:40 | 103 |
| re .52? (Arpad Deak)
If I read your paragraph correctly, we're in agreement about
who/what XYZ and ZYX are, and how they're likely to behave in
reality as well as how we would like them to behave in
theory.
About "The Patriarchy"--for what it's worth, I have long
understood this to be a particular pattern of interactions at
the societal level, often reflected in interpersonal
interactions, rather than a group of people. It's a pattern
that tends to be defined by a hierarchical structure, with
XYZ (or whoever) on top and mostly in power. In other words,
"the patriarchy" as I understand it is *not* the group of
XYZs who have easier access to the top of the pyramid, it's
the shape of the pyramid and the rules maintaining both the
shape and the group of XYZs at the top.
I don't think it's possible to say that the group on top, or
the much larger group on the bottom of the pyramid, or any
other group is responsible for creating "the patriarchy." It
may be possible and useful to pinpoint "the system" or "the
patriarchy" for endemic social ills (widespread poverty,
neglect of children by parent(s), etc), but (as Chelsea
pointed out), it's probably not useful or correct to blame
"the patriarchy" for an individual's problems.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being any
particular place in this hierarchical pyramid. I think one
premise of feminism is that we're tired of the particular
disadvantages we've got being lower on the pyramid. Our
complaint is not necessarily with the group of XYZ's on top,
but with our access to the top--or with the shape of the
pyramid itself. My understanding of Betty Friedan's goals
back in the 1960s was that she wanted to change the rules for
who got to be at the top of the pyramid so that women had as
much opportunity as men. It is completely understandable (as
well as frustrating) that many people at the top of the
pyramid are going to be frightened by a change that might put
them lower in the pyramid. It is also understandable that
people *anywhere* in the pyramid might be frightened by
changing from something known to something with new and
not-yet-well-understood rules for interacting societally
and/or interpersonally, even though the cost of not changing
might be pretty high.
Of course, there are also people whose goal is changing the
pyramid, who feel like more of our societal troubles are
caused by the fact that the pyramid exists at all, rather
than the fact that certain persons have easier access to the
top by virtue of being born into group XYZ. You have
mentioned elsewhere that you have socialist leanings: is
this at all similar to the goals of socialism? (This may be
grounds for another topic...)
We (people, that is) mostly don't have a very good idea of
how to change the rules to get more equitable access to the
top of the pyramid. We have even less of an idea of how to
change the shape of the pyramid. One of the things ZYXs can
do is examine society to see whether there is, in fact, a
societal problem. The statistics from 1975 seem to support
the claim that there was a problem then, and my gut feeling
(I know, no supporting evidence) is that there is still a
problem, although I suspect (hope) that the magnitude is
less.
One of the things that feminists will do, no less than anyone
else, is sometimes allow emotion to color the statistics. My
gut feeling is that *some* of the statistics showing that
there is a problem are in fact correct, and that *some* of
the statistics are poorly gathered and so do not show any
result at all. My hope is that I, as an individual, can be
observant enough to recognize poorly gathered statistics that
may support my preferred view of the world. I also hope that
I can be objective enough to recognize valid statistics that
challenge some part of my world view. My perception of the
article entered in the base note is that the author quoted
poorly-gathered statistics, or simply didn't support his
statistics at all. Because my personal world-view is that
there *is* a pyramid, and that there *is* easier access to
the top for XYZs, and that this *is* a serious and dangerous
societal problem, I was quite disturbed by this author's
mis-use of statistics in support of the status quo. Again,
if he had presented statistics that seemed to me to be
correctly gathered and given credit, I would hope that I
could be objective enough to entertain the thought of
changing some parts of my own world-view.
- - - - - - - - - -
You have mentioned one of the tools which ZYXs are using in
hopes of changing things: AA. I don't know enough to know
whether this tool has either the capability to change the
rules for access to the top of the pyramid, or the capability
to begin changing the shape of the pyramid, or neither.
Another tool is that "the personal is the political," where
the premise is that by changing our interpersonal
interactions on a large enough scale, we will begin seeing a
reflection in our societal interactions. If there is any
interest in discussing AA or other tools used by feminists to
change the status quo, perhaps we should start another topic.
-- Linda
|
| 651.57 | if the shoe doesn't fit, challenge the cobbler | DECWET::JWHITE | God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God | Tue Jun 27 1989 20:27 | 45 |
| re:.52
you know, you're absolutely right. we feminists are blaming men. we're
blaming every man who tells his son to grow up to be president and his
daughter to grow up to be only a housewife; every man who teaches his male
students calculus and his female students only sewing; every man who sends
his son to college but not his equally qualified daughter; every man who
abandons his children; every man who expects his wife to be a servant and
a possession; every man who makes, sells or buys pornography or uses
women's bodies to sell products; every man who gives his male employees
bigger raises than his equally competent, equally hard working female
employees or denies a woman a job in the first place or harrasses a woman
in the workplace; every male doctor who is insensitive women's physical
needs; every male priest who denies women their spiritual identity; every
male artist who belittles women's creativity; every male politician who
votes against the e.r.a. or fair housing or abortion rights and every man
who voted for that politician. we're blaming every man who is a rapist
and we're blaming every male attorney, judge or jury member who puts the
victim on trial instead of the criminal. we're blaming every man who
beats or abuses women.
(have i missed anything? you can be sure i have)
these men are individuals and are culpable for their actions.
are these men a statistical majority? i do not know; i do know that there
are too many of them and some of them are very powerful and adversly
effect my life and the lives of my loved ones.
are we blaming women who do these things? you can be sure we do
do you think you are not one of them? fine; i believe you
as a feminist, i believe that these men, their ideas and the social
structure that allows and encourages these ideas should be challenged.
furthermore, i would suggest that it plays into their hands to have that
challenge called 'male-bashing'; it allows them to hide behind all the
good men. if you think a particular program or idea is wrong, say so; and
tell us why you think so, tell us why it doesn't promote the goal of
equality and tell us how it does not sufficiently or properly challenge
those men and their socially sanctioned ideas mentioned above who, for a
lack of a better name, we might call the Patriarchy. if you simply call it
'male-bashing', your readers will be tempted to assume that you are
trying to defend those men mentioned above or, worse, that you are one.
|
| 651.59 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Tue Jun 27 1989 22:47 | 8 |
| um, "Bob"
could you clarify your response a bit? you quote Joe White but
appear to be reacting to Steve Thompson.
confused
Bonnie
|
| 651.61 | Open Mindedness Cuts Both Ways | BARTLE::GODIN | This is the only world we have | Wed Jun 28 1989 16:53 | 29 |
| Arpad, in the spirit of open-mindedness and healthy challenge that
you praised in .53, could I respectfully request that you refrain
from referring to "traditional feminists" as being hostile toward
men and as male-bashers? I find these terms personally insulting
and take them as a personal attack, since I am presumably one of
those "traditional feminists" (I'm assuming you're referring to
feminists whose roots are in the movement of the '60s and '70s),
and am no more hostile or a male-basher than you are hostile and
a feminist-basher.
It is clearly apparent that you have likewise taken personal exception
to some of the generalizations used in this file when referring
to the male-dominated power structure of our society. Just as your
back gets up when you feel yourself unfairly criticized, my back
gets up when I feel you are unfairly criticizing me. "Male" is
a general term which may require qualification when used by some
of the members of this conference. But "feminist" is an equally
general (though non-parallel) term that I sense you use in an
intentionally pejorative way to refer to politically-active females
whose agenda you disagree with.
If you take exception to male-bashing, in "a spirit of open-mindedness"
you must also take exception to feminist-bashing.
And while I may disagree with what you are saying, I'll defend your
right to say it, though I'll also reserve my right to hit "NEXT
UNSEEN" when your choice of words generates more heat than light.
Karen
|
| 651.62 | I don't hate 'men'...just obstacles | SELL3::JOHNSTON | weaving my dreams | Wed Jun 28 1989 17:02 | 40 |
| re.60 Arpad
I agree that equal opportunity for all in moving up is greatly to be
desired. However, that the top of the pyramid is primarily male _is_
significant. You spoke of 'poor women and poor men' lower in the
hierarchy and their common cause, yet not all barriers to entry into
the corridors to power and opportunity are economic or ethnic.
I speak as one born into a group within our society traditionally held
to be at the top of the established pecking order -- white _Upper_
middle-class Anglican. 'My people' _are_ The Establishment to some. My
role among 'my people' is defined in terms of the men in my life when I
would prefer it to be defined in terms myself and my accomlishments.
'My people' are both men and women for whom 'the Patriarchy' works.
They are more accepting of a man who works his way up the ladder to
earn his place among them than they are of 'one of their own' stepping
outside her assigned role to attempt the same.
I am a feminist because I want to see an end to discrimination against
women simply because they are women, not because I wish to define a New
Order. I do not wish to see 'men' punished. I do _not_ wish to see a
beginning of discrimination against men simply because they are men.
I harbour no resentment against a man who beats me out on a choice
assignment [well...not that lasts]. I am highly inflamed by the wo/man
who gives me a token raise because Rick is well compensated -- sort of
puts me in the class of one of his income-yielding investments ['her
return on investment looks favourable...she certainly yields more than
the cost of her food and shelter...']
Many generations of woman helped to construct the Patriarchy. In recent
years, the number of women who could say that they derived _any_
benefit from it has fallen off drastically for any number of reasons.
When the benefits ceased women jumped ship [men have been known to do
this too. It's called self-preservation]
So, you see, any lingering hostility I have toward the Patriarchy is
not male-directed.
Ann
|
| 651.63 | | LOWLIF::HUXTABLE | Who enters the dance must dance. | Wed Jun 28 1989 18:51 | 46 |
| re .60 (Arpad)
> ...There
> are many, many males too who are within the base. Perhaps not as many as
> females but very significant numbers nonetheless. Everyone needs access to
> the pyramid...Couldn't we do it all together? Poor females and males?
There certainly are plenty of men in the base of the pyramid.
Part of the reason I've intermittently been using XYZ is as
short-hand to mean something like "a white heterosexual male
with no physical handicaps lucky enough to be born to parents
with enough money to send him to a prestigious university and
make sure he learned to speak English with no accent or
lower-class speech patterns..." etc. Some of the men in the
base of the pyramid are probably XYZs who either choose not
to take advantage of the easier access to the top of the
pyramid, or who for other reasons cannot. Also, no doubt,
there are a few people at the top of the pyramid who are not
XYZs, or who fit most but not quite all of the requirements
to be an XYZ.
I agree with you that the rules for access to the top of the
pyramid shouldn't be so restrictive. (On alternate days I'd
like to get rid of the hierarchical pyramid altogether, I
just don't know quite what to replace it with or how it would
work.) I agree with you that we should *all* pull together--
I don't see much use in changing the rules so that, say, both
upper-class men and women have equally easy access to the top
of the pyramid, but the rest of us still can't get there.
My only caveat is that I as an individual have limited
resources, energy, and time, so I am most inclined to put my
time/energy where it is most emotionally satisfying to me. I
am a middle-class white woman with a non-debilitating
handicap, and I find less emotional satisfaction in, say,
devoting my time/energy to an organization working to improve
the situation of Hispanics or blue-collar workers (although I
would generally agree with with the goals of such an
organization) than I find in working to further the goals of
women in our society. But I see no reason why those goals
need to be much different than the goals of other
traditionally powerless groups and I would whole-heartedly
support organizations or strategies that help more people
than just white middle-class women like me.
-- Linda
|
| 651.64 | Picture this. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | I'll pick a white rose with Plantagenet. | Wed Jun 28 1989 19:03 | 25 |
| Back in college I saw a pair of diagrams. The first one showed
your basic monarchy/nobility/peasants setup, with people of ability
marked in blue (I'll use "O") and incompetents marked in red (I'll
use "X"):
X
OXO
OXOXO
XOXOXOX
XOXOXOXOX
The second showed the ideal democracy:
O
OOOOO
OOOXOOOOO
OOXOOOOOXOOOO
XOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXO
XOXXXXXOXXXXO
XXXXOXXXX
XXXXX
X
Currently, we still have a bit of a mixture, don't we?
Ann B.
|
| 651.65 | kudos | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Jun 28 1989 21:30 | 6 |
| in re .61 to .64
I'd like to thank and praise the women who entered the previous
notes for their thoughtful and illustrative examples.
Bonnie
|