Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    There is an eye place in the middle of downtown Marlboro - I *think*
    its called Eye Visions - they have a woman optometrist.

    All you need to do is take a trip to downtown Marlboro, and it has a
    green store front facing if I remember correctly...  I took my 10 year
    old there for her first pair of glasses and the lady was absolutely
    wonderful.

    Gale

    Re .1
    
    The place in Marlboro is called "Vision Associates".  I've had
    very good service over the past ten years.
    

    Why a female optometrist? 

    I recommend Dr Kathryn Weigel on Nason ST in downtown
    Maynard, 897-7212.  I've been going to her for several 
    years.  I like the competence and patience of the 
    assistants who fit the frames, as well as the doctor
    herself.
    
    Pat

    
    	My husband goes to Dr. Weigel and highly
    recommends her also.

    The place in Marlboro is Vision Associates and the woman referred
    to is Dr. Judith Marrocco.   She was excellent but unfortunately she has
    left and moved to California.

    

From .3:

>>>    Why a female optometrist? 

For two reasons:

(1) If I have to give money to a stranger for some professional purpose, I'd
rather give it to a woman.

(2) I'm much more comfortable talking to women doctors. I can't stand to be
sneered at by doctors, and I've had a few male doctors (a few, not many) treat
me rudely.

Vicki Meagher

    re .7
    
    You are obviously
    sexist  ==> lame excuse number (1)
    prejudist  ==> lame excuse number (2)
    
    An optometrist's abilities are judged by what he/she can do with
    whats between their ears and not what is located between her/his
     legs.
    This country (New England too) would be a much better place if 
    people would treat a "stanger" with EQUAL respect reguardless of
    their race,color, or gender.
    
    stan
    
    ps    flame - off

    re: .8 (Stan)
    
    You're apparently angry, Stan, but does that give you the right
    to toss insults like "obviously sexist/prejudiced" and "lame 
    excuse"?  The way I see it, Vicki, (.7) was responding to a 
    question in .3 as to why she'd make a particular choice in an
    open marketplace.  She did so by stating her own (#1) preferences 
    and (#2) experiences.  I don't think either case was an "excuse",
    "lame" or otherwise.
    
    I'd suggest that she's not necessarily sexist or prejudiced, at
    least by the reasons she gave.  First, sexism has to do with the
    oppression - the intentional subjugation - of one sex by the other.
    If Vicki were in charge of admissions to a medical school and 
    decided to admit only women, then that would be sexism.  However,
    if she decides, based on her experiences, to favor one type of 
    doctor over another, she's simply making market choices.  Her
    desire for a female optometrist does nothing to hold back males
    in the same profession.  
    
    Secondly, instead of prejudice in her second reason, I see
    the expression of her experience.  She's had unpleasant 
    experiences with some male doctors - shouldn't she be allowed 
    to factor that into her future choices?  As I see it, her
    first reason for choosing a female optometrist has everything
    to do with her second reason (her experiences).
    
    My experiences with owning Japanese-built cars has been 
    considerably more favorable than with those I've had that 
    were built in America or Europe.  In future choices, I'll 
    heavily favor the Japanese cars but that doesn't make me 
    "anti"-American (or European); it makes me a consumer looking 
    for the most satisfactory purchase.  In that search, I'll use
    research *and experience*.
    
    I suggest that while "An optometrist's abilities are judged
    by what he/she can do with whats (sic) between their ears. . ."
    a vendor's products and services are judged by more than simple
    technical skill.  One painful lesson this company is having to
    learn is that while technical competence is a good thing, customer
    satisfaction carries a great deal of weight in the marketplace.
    It seems to me (and apparently Vicki, too) that doctors are 
    not just technicians but also vendors of a service.
    
    One final thought:
    
    "This country (New England too) would be a much better place if 
    people would treat a "stanger" with EQUAL respect reguardless of
    their race,color, or gender."
    
    I agree.  And that includes doctors offering their services to
    their clients.  Apparently Vicki has found that some doctors
    don't seem to ascribe to your belief.
    
    Steve

    Angry yes, insulting no. I had no intensions of insulting anyone.
    Your attempts to sugar-coat her Very sexist statement is  an
    example of why there are such problems in the area of prejudice.
    Prejudice is the act of PRE Judging someone. Sexist is to discriminate
    on the basis of ones gender. Please don't try to insult anyones
    inteligence by inserting a deffinition for those words that suits
    your need to justify the acts. 
    
     It takes very little study to find that there is a little difference
    between people and cars. People are flesh and blood, and NO two are
    alike. On the other hand car manufacturers try very hard to make their
    products the same. To develope an oppiniion of a car is to be expected
    under those conditions. But to ASSUME that all people of one
    race/color/sex are all the same is prejudice, and to point it out is
    hardly an insult. 
    
     My anger is not directed at the base notes aurther directly. But at
    the thought that as long as its not a WASP male making a statement
    such as, "I don't have anything to do with (black,female,male,jewish,
    white,spanish,etc...) because I've done it before and it was a bad
    experiance.", it is considered to be acceptable and or justifiable.
    I know that I'm living in a dream to wish that all people would simply
    treat others with the same respect that they expect themselves, but
    its a nice dream and i will do every thing I can to help others to
    realize the importance of it.
    
    stan

	 RE: Stan

	 I suppose I'm sexist/prejudice too because I prefer male
	 doctors and rarely, if ever, go to a woman doctor?????

	 What happened to "personal preference"?

	 kath

        re .7
        
>> (1) If I have to give money to a stranger for some professional purpose, I'd
>> rather give it to a woman.
        
        What is the difference between that and feeling that if
        one has to give a job to a stranger, one would rather
        give it to a man?  How about if the person feeling that
        ways is the owner of the business?
        
        Dan

        re .12
        
>> (1) If I have to give money to a stranger for some professional purpose, I'd
>> rather give it to a woman.
        
>        What is the difference between that and feeling that if
>        one has to give a job to a stranger, one would rather
>        give it to a man?  How about if the person feeling that
>        ways is the owner of the business?


	 Well, I see how it could be construed as sexist.  Personally
	 I don't give a crap whether it's a man or a woman, as long as
	 the person is the best choice available to me.  It seems to
	 be that the basenoter is the one that is potentially missing
	 out because she doesn't want to find the best, but rather
	 a woman.  To each their own, but her logic won't work for me,
	 because, with the dealings I've had with misdiagnosis, being
	 the best has become a much higher priority, and I can't see how
	 I could let anything else take over that priority.

	 What's the difference as compared to a het desiring to only
	 date a person of the opposite sex? ;-)


	 Anyway.........personal preference is STILL a must.


	 kath

    re. (kath)
    
    Under the same situation , yes I would consider you sexist/prejudice.
    Perhaps there are just too many trees in the way for you to see the 
    forest.
    
    Let me try putting the situation in this light...
    
     If the base noter came into my Eyelab took a look at me and said
     "Sorry I don't do buiseness with black people" I will feel rage.
     I would feel the same rage if she said "Sorry I don't do buisness
     with men". I can't see how anyone could not. maybe put yourself in
    the shoes of the receiving party, what would be your feelings when
    Joe redneck apon seeing you asks your manager if there is a man around
    he can do buisness with. After all he had a bad experience before with
    a woman and therefore you could not possibly be good enough for his
    needs.
    
    Prejudice is a terrible thing . To lable it as just an oppinion is
    equally a terrible thing. Perhaps one needs to experience prejudice
    to be able to reconize it, and detest it in any form from ANY source.
    
    From reading that last paragraph maybe its better for some of you not
    to understand prejudice. Because I wouldn't wish that experience on
    anyone, not even those that would excuse it as "just personal
    oppinion".
    
    stan

> <<< Note 945.15 by TOWNS::BIGSBY "I refuse to battle wits with the unarmed" >>>

>    Under the same situation , yes I would consider you sexist/prejudice.
>    Perhaps there are just too many trees in the way for you to see the 
>    forest.

	 Explain yourself.....please.  I pride myself in trying to not be
	 sexist/prejudice in the least.  So, please enlighten me as to
	 how I am.

         I BELIEVE what you're saying is that this is a no win
         situation.  If I feel comfortable with a certain female
         doctor, then I'm obviously being sexist.  If the doctor isn't
         black or hispanic, then I'm obviously being prejudice, but
         then again, if I DO go to a black doctor, then I'm prejudice
         against whites.....

         You make ABSOLUTELY no sense.  I go to the doctor that is the
         BEST, *regardless* of their physical characteristics....I am
         more COMFORTABLE with men,. given two equals--a man and a
	 woman--I would select the man.  So, obviously I'm being prejudice
         against doctors that aren't as good (in my eyes) as the
         doctor I've selected.  You're damn right I'm going to be
         prejudice in this case.  And I'm sexist because I would
	 choose the man.

>    From reading that last paragraph maybe its better for some of you not
>    to understand prejudice. Because I wouldn't wish that experience on
>    anyone, not even those that would excuse it as "just personal
>    oppinion".

	 I severely dislike your implication that some of us don't
	 understand prejudice.  You don't know us, therefore you're
	 making rash generalizations.  Are rash generalizations better
	 than prejudice??  Perhaps we just don't "understand it the
	 way you do."  Is that possible?  Yes, because there is no
	 set rules about what everyone must feel Sexism/Prejudism (?)
	 to be.

         Personally, I feel that choosing a doctor with criteriea
         based only on their gender IS sexist.  But it is HIGHLY
         UNLIKELY that is what the basenote author is doing.  More
	 likely she is just more comfortable with women, so she seeks
	 a woman.

         Tell me, Stan.  Why did you select your current doctor? 
         Basically, it boils down to personal preference.  I CHOOSE
         the doctor that I am most comfortable with; the doctor that I
         feel is best for me. THAT is not prejudice, that is
         preference.  


	 Me thinketh thou protesteth too much and tend to see
	 sexism/prejudism when it isn't there, at least in this case.
	 Perhaps your "forest" isn't really there at all?

	 kath

	 

    It seems  to  me  that  specifying  the  sex (or race, or anything
    similar)  of  the  people  you  are willing to do business with is
    sexism  (or  racism,  or ...), and it certainly seems to represent
    prejudice.  I try to find the best person I can.

    Because it  sounds too prejudiced for my taste, I will not respond
    to a request for a recommendation that specifies the sex (or race)
    required,   even  if  the  person  I  would  recommend  meets  the
    requirements.  (Unless  the  job  has  a  bona  fide  occupational
    qualification  requiring a particular sex. The only examples I can
    come  up with off hand are actors/actresses, wet nurses, and sperm
    donors.)

--David

    	RE: .15  Stan
    
    	You're awful doggone free and easy with derogatory labels 
    	(like calling multiple individuals sexist.)  How would you 
    	like it if I called you a racist, or a sexist yourself (or
    	an idiot?)
    
    	> Prejudice is a terrible thing . To lable it as just an oppinion 
    	> is equally a terrible thing. Perhaps one needs to experience 
    	> prejudice to be able to reconize it, and detest it in any form 
    	> from ANY source.
    
    	You assume a hell of a lot, Stan.  First, you assume that your
    	interpretation of what the original author meant is the ONLY
    	POSSIBLE ONE (regardless of what anyone else might say,) and
    	then you assume that anyone who disagrees with your OPINION of
    	what she meant must not have experienced prejudice.
    
    	> From reading that last paragraph maybe its better for some of 
    	> you not to understand prejudice. Because I wouldn't wish that 
    	> experience on anyone, not even those that would excuse it as 
    	> "just personal oppinion".
    
    	Obviously, you don't understand it any more than you claim others
    	do (or else, you would realize how condescending and insulting
    	your whole tone has been in this topic.)  Why do you demand 
    	respect for all people, but refuse to *offer* respect yourself?

    re .17
    I'd like it fine if you would call me as you wish.
    That you (and others) are angered by what you see in the
    psycological mirror I am holding up. Is giving me satisfaction.
    
    My satisfaction is in that you can feel the anger people feel
    when they are victomized by prejudice. 
    
    Allot is being read into my statements that is not there. THat is
    certainly forseeable. Since I am not enough of a diplomat to word 
    my feelings in a way that will not stop some people from running off
    on tangents, I will not justify such garbage with a response.
    
    re. kath
    
    Boy those trees must really be BIG!!
    I nor anyone else cares what criteria you used to sellect your
    proffesionals. I was talking about the act of PRE JUDGING a potential
    eye doctor. I never mentioned judging a person by what professionals
    they currently cater to. If the proverbial shoe fits, I never suggested
    that you wear it. Please refrain from lashing out at me for whatever
    anger you feel towards some imaginary thing you thought I said.
    
    stan 

    	RE: .19  Stan
    
    	> I'd like it fine if you would call me as you wish.
    	> That you (and others) are angered by what you see in the
    	> psycological mirror I am holding up. Is giving me satisfaction.
    
    	You assume anger in others because you admitted to feeling it 
    	yourself.  The reflection you see in the mirror is your own.
    
    	> My satisfaction is in that you can feel the anger people feel
    	> when they are victomized by prejudice. 
    
    	You assume that women would have no way of knowing what it's
    	like to experience such a thing as prejudice, right?  Your
    	ignorance about these matters is appalling, Stan.  
    
    	> Allot is being read into my statements that is not there. THat is
    	> certainly forseeable. Since I am not enough of a diplomat to word 
    	> my feelings in a way that will not stop some people from running off
    	> on tangents, I will not justify such garbage with a response.
    
    	You started this tangent with the name-calling (in .8).
    
    	Again, I would like to ask you (if you have the courtesy to answer,) 
    	why do you demand respect for all people when you refuse to give it?

> <<< Note 945.19 by TOWNS::BIGSBY "I refuse to battle wits with the unarmed" >>>
    
>    Boy those trees must really be BIG!!

	 Lay off with your tree bit.  It's an insult and I don't
	 appreciate it.
	 
>    If the proverbial shoe fits, I never suggested
>    that you wear it. Please refrain from lashing out at me for whatever
>    anger you feel towards some imaginary thing you thought I said.

         In .15 you said,
	 
>    Under the same situation , yes I would consider you sexist/prejudice.

	 I gave my thoughts that I would prefer a man, and by light of
	 this statement, you are implying (at least *I* think) that I
	 am sexist because of it.
	 
>    From reading that last paragraph maybe its better for some of you not
>    to understand prejudice. 

	 And this sentence, to me, implies that you feel that the
	 people that have responded to you adversely don't understand
	 what prejudice is.


	 If my implications from your statements are wrong, please
	 advise.....but it they aren't, then I have every reason to
	 "lash out."  Are these things you said imaginary?  Or do they
	 just mean something else?

	 kath

    	RE: .19  Stan
    
    	Perhaps I can be of some assistance here.
    
    	> I was talking about the act of PRE JUDGING a potential
    	> eye doctor.
    
    	Ok.  Let's look at the words you were talking about again:
    
    	.7> (2) I'm much more comfortable talking to women doctors. I can't 
    	.7> stand to be sneered at by doctors, and I've had a few male doctors 
    	.7> (a few, not many) treat me rudely.
    
    	Her statement about being "more comfortable" talking to women doctors
    	is an assertion of her feeling, and is not an "opinion" about male
    	doctors.  The fact that she dislikes being sneered at by doctors is
    	*also* her feeling.  You have no right to invalidate what she feels.
    
    	Her statement that "a few male doctors (a few, not many)" have treated 
    	her rudely is her opinion about THOSE FEW MALE DOCTORS (eg, that they 
    	treated her in ways she would regard as rude.)  It was not a statement 
    	about all or even most male doctors.
    
    	So what we have is a situation where her feelings have been influenced 
    	by a few experiences.  Fine.  The feelings are still hers, so she can 
    	base them on whatever she chooses.  It's her right.
    
    	As for deliberately seeking a woman doctor in this situation, it is
    	also her right AS A CONSUMER to spend her money based on any criteria
    	she chooses, whether you happen to agree personally with her reasons
    	for making a certain choice or not.  We *all* have that right as
    	consumers.  It's not something that needs to be justified to anyone.
    
    	Someone earlier compared this situation to that of an employer who
    	hires based on race or gender, but I contend that the position of
    	a consumer is less like an employer than it is like someone who
    	deliberately seeks one sex over the other in a romantic situation.
    	It's a matter of personal choice.

    I've never bought into the "don't invalidate someone's feelings"
    sideline, frankly, as it's frequently used as a mechanism to deflect
    well-intentioned (and sometimes valid) criticism. It sounds like
    something from one of those nouveau-psych courses that are supposed to
    help our self-actualization, or other such hokum. Besides, to question
    the motivation behind acting on such feelings does *not* invalidate
    them. The feelings may be genuine, but it's perfectly reasonable to
    suggest that there may be good reasons to rise above them.

    	RE: .23  Paul
    
    	> I've never bought into the "don't invalidate someone's feelings"
    	> sideline, frankly, as it's frequently used as a mechanism to deflect
    	> well-intentioned (and sometimes valid) criticism.
    
    	Well, sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that calling a person
    	hideous names because she would simply prefer a woman optometrist
    	is "well-intentioned" in any sense of the word (nor is it valid.)
    
    	Actually, I brought up the idea of "not invalidating feelings" in
    	an almost ironic sense (since it has become another one of those
    	things that has become popular to throw into the faces of women
    	while engaging in the age-old practice of telling us what we
    	think and feel.)  I was expecting to see someone start accusing
    	me of "invalidating Stan's feelings" that we're angry and sexist
    	any time now.  :-)

    	RE: .24  Mike Z.
    
    	> If a hiring manager in a small company has had a limited amount
    	> of bad experience with past female employees, is it OK with you if
    	> only male candidates are summarily considered for employment?
    
    	If I try to sell you swamp land and you refuse to go for the deal,
    	do I have the right to sue you for discrimination for not buying
    	it from me?  How about if you even *told* me that you would have
    	bought swamp land from a man, but won't buy it from a woman?  Has
    	any salesperson ever successfully litigated against the loss of a
    	sale because a private consumer didn't have good enough reasons to
    	say no (in the saleperson's opinion?)
    
    	> If your answer is "no", why is it not that manager's right, as
    	> a consumer of labor, to spend money based on any criteria he or she
    	> chooses?
    
    	Well, Mike, as a "consumer of emotional experiences" with other
    	humans, do you consider it "ok" that you only date women?  Have you
    	even given men (as dates) an opportunity to show you that they could
    	also be worthy of your time and romantic attention?
    
    	> Isn't Vicki's strategy one of systematic discrimination against
    	> male optometrists?

    	Is your strategy to date (and eventually marry) only women a matter
    	of systematic discrimination against men?  :-)
    
	> If so, is that OK?
    
    	Seriously, Mike, unless Vicki has thousands/millions of eyes, I'd
    	hardly call her act of choosing a woman optometrist "systematic"
    	in any sense.  If she were to attempt to pass legislation making
    	it illegal for men to be optometrists, or if she were to put
    	political or financial pressure on colleges to prevent men from
    	being educated as optometrists in the future, then we'd have the
    	basis for a discussion here.  However, as you know, such things
    	are a far cry from anything Vicki (or anyone else) has suggested.

>    	Well, sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that calling a person
>    	hideous names because she would simply prefer a woman optometrist
>    	is "well-intentioned" in any sense of the word (nor is it valid.)

    I neither said, nor intended to suggest, that it was either. My
    comments were directed to the general tactic of "feelings
    invalidation", and were not intended to defend any individual
    responding to this topic. 
    
    For what it's worth, I will agree that the tone of some of the
    objections to the base note have been entirely inappropriate. I didn't
    suggest that any of the name-calling was valid, and I'm in no better
    position than anybody else save the author as to how well-intentioned
    any comments were.

    If the subject of "is it okay to select a doctor according to sex?" is
    to be discussed, I'd suggest it be done with a separate topic
    (generalized, perhaps), to separate it from the base note request (and
    to get away from personalities, which got out of line real fast).

    	RE: .27  Paul
    
    	> If the subject of "is it okay to select a doctor according to sex?" 
    	> is to be discussed...
    
    	Well, I guess that's a point worth considering on its own.
    
    	Do you think women need permission (in some sense) to make decisions 
    	for our *own reasons* about something as intimate (personal) as the 
    	choice of a physician?  Personally, I don't.
    

    re .28

    The reason I thought there could be grist for a more general discussion
    on the subject is this:

    At one end of the spectrum, using someone's sex as a selection
    criterion is clearly (not everybody would agree) wrong. For example,
    hiring, promotion, etc. It's in the "public domain", so it's wrong.

    At another end of the spectrum, the same choice falls under the heading
    of purely personal preference. For example, choice of a doctor. This is
    in the "personal domain", so it's clearly okay.

    Between these two extremes there falls a grey area whose boundaries are
    harder to define. Suppose you have a room in your house to rent. That's
    pretty personal, but it can affect someone else's life (a homeless
    person, for example). You see a lot of ads for "F roomate wanted,
    nonsmoker". Personal domain, right? When does this turn into the
    "public domain" issue of rent discrimination? When you acknowledge the
    rent received as income? Not clear to me.

    What I saw happening in this topic has been different people locating
    the crossover from private to public domain influence in different
    places. (Note that I'm not so much talking about what should be
    "legally enforced" as what is "ethically right".) That's the issue I
    thought might best be separated from this note into its own, if
    somebody wants to start it. 

    In any event, with that clarification I will follow my own advice of
    "three replies to a topic and out". Primarily, because I don't have the
    name of a female optometrist to suggest, which is the purpose of this
    topic anyway.

    I prefer to choose women doctors in any specialty, if only because
    it gives me some sense of helping to make up for the several centuries
    during which women were prevented from becoming doctors at all.
    The ancient tradition of women healers was simply stolen from them
    along about the 17th century, with the rise of the male-dominated 
    medical profession which prevented women from attending medical school
    and/or practicing medicine. 

    	RE: .31  Mike Z.
    
    	> But, Suzanne, why do you refer to an optometrist in the manner
    	> above : "intimate (personal) [...] choice of a physician"?

	> An optometrist is not exactly a gynecologist.
    
    	Well, one's eyes may not be as privately positioned as other
    	parts of the body, but I happen to consider any close inspection
    	of one's body-parts as being intimate contact that involves some
    	level of personal trust (in order to be comfortable.)  When I go
    	to my own optometrist (to have my eyes checked,) I'm mindful of
    	the fact that the doctor is well within the boundaries of my
    	personal space, which is significant to me whether I'm dressed
    	in clothes or not at the time.  
    
    	Hope this helps, Mike.

    Good grief!  Was =soapbox= closed yesterday? 
    
    I've locked this string because it has gotten completely out of hand
    for this file.  I believe that the topic indirectly raised by Stan in
    .8 and illuminated further by Paul is potentially a very interesting
    one, and I would be willing to clip out the relevant portion of this
    string to seed a new one if there's interest (which please express in
    15.*).
    
    If anyone wishes to respond to Vicki's request while this string is
    closed, please send me mail and I'll post it for you.
    
    						=maggie