| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1076.1 | thanks d! for the 'paraphrase' rule! | DECWET::JWHITE | sometimes it rains | Wed Apr 04 1990 18:59 | 37 |
|
re:.0
i understand the main thrusts of your very long note to be:
1) edp is a reasonable person acting from noble instincts (evidence,
anecdotal and otherwise, given)
2) the presentation of the concept of sexism and its relation to
oppression in general (definitions and assumptions, if you will)
3) the thesis that =womannotes= in general (and a note by sandy
ciccolini in particular) is sexist, based on #2 above (with
additional evidence presented)
4) the feeling that disagreement with #3 above is primarily 'ad
hominem', in willful disregard of #1 above
based on this understanding, my reactions:
i realise and accept your sincerity. that is, i believe that you
honestly believe what you say you believe and that your reasoning
is, to you, valid.
i disagree with most of your presentation of the concept of sexism
and oppression. that is, i do not accept what i understand to be
your definitions and assumptions.
not surprisingly, since i do not agree with the definitions and
assumptions, i do not find the 'sexism in =womannotes=' thesis
compelling.
finally, while i quite understand the emotional intensity
of this debate (having succumbed to it myself in earlier mail to
you, for which i again humbly apologise), i hope i have made clear
that my objections are philosophical, not personal.
|
| 1076.2 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Apr 04 1990 20:33 | 61 |
| RE: .0 edp
>I defend freedom and oppose oppression on principle, because freedom is
>good and oppression is bad. That is all the reason I need -- and it is
>all you need to know to know that I have honorable motives. As far as
>I am concerned that settles the matter: There will be NO statements
>accusing me of ulterior motives or saying that my opposition to
>something is due to selfish reasons.
If only it were this easy to settle the matter with you about *OUR*
motives.
Tell me, what is the magic phrase WE need to use to insure that there
will be "NO statements accusing [us] of ulterior motives, etc." from
you?
How do we stop YOU from doing the thing that you have ORDERED us not
to do?
> I thought that equality for the genders would be of interest to
> women. I am sure it is, but also of interest seems to be returning
> hate and sexism of their own.
Your ignorance about our motives is appalling. (The magic phrase
to get you to stop assessing our motives would really come in handy
right now.)
> This conference is rife with sexist ideas. "Male justice" and
> "female justice" is nonsense.
Equality is not a quest to prove we are ALL identical (men and
women.) Noticing that each group has a somewhat unique perspective
on some issues is not the crime of the century. The point is that
we should find things to value in all groups, regardless of whether
some of our perspectives differ or not.
> Even one individual's concept of justice can easily vary more in
> their lifetime than the difference between the averages of the
> genders.
Gosh, did someone forget to leave off the endless disclaimers again,
Eric? Allow me: When someone says "women" and/or "men," the terms do
not include every living human female and/or male on our planet and/or
Universe. Most of us know this when we read notes here. We don't
need the disclaimer added each and every time we see those words.
> Maybe some participants think they are reversing sexism that they
> have been subjected to.
No, this is merely the kind of accusation we often see here (born
of a profound ignorance about what some/many/most women here are
actually saying.)
>Somebody wallowing in the mud was throwing mud on you, so you decided
>to get in the mud yourself and throw some back.
Again, you assess our motives (after expressly FORBIDDING us to do
the same to yours!) Why are you allowed to do this to us, after
ORDERING us not to do this to you?
More later...
|
| 1076.3 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Apr 04 1990 21:53 | 91 |
| RE: .0 edp
Eric, I am unwilling to debate the following issues with you (or
any other issues) on a back-and-forth basis.
However, I will comment from time to time.
> Participants in this conference have as much as demanded that a
> person justify themselves before they are accepted as a person.
Good grief. This is so preposterous that I don't know whether to
laugh or to put my foot through the VT screen.
You issued complaints about how no one respected you, so a few
people tried to HELP you by explaining how you might become more
accepted in this community.
Now you throw this kindness back in our faces with the claim that
we made DEMANDS of you. So much for offering you human kindness.
It was obviously a mistake.
> A person cannot ask questions or make simple statements without
> their motives being attacked groundlessly.
You were perceived as being a hostile presence in this conference
(a perception which is reinforced every day you continue to write
notes here,) and this perception is *far* from groundless, as far
as I'm concerned.
> Participants may know nothing at all about a person's motives, but
> they make judgements. That is prejudice.
Of course, it's NOT prejudice when you make judgments about our
motives, right?
> Participants demand that a person explain who they are, that they
> reveal personal things before their words are accepted as the words
> of any human being should be.
Eric, this is communication over a computer. Do you realize that
we can't see your face nor hear your voice, and that you are merely
words on a screen to us? Communication over a computer requires
special efforts from ALL of us!
The way you write isn't perceived as social or hospitable, yet you
issued complaints (mentioned earlier) that you aren't being accepted
here. People were trying to help you "fill out" your image a bit
by asking you about yourself. It's a social exercise on a medium
that makes human interaction more difficult than would be the case
at a party or in a lunch room.
How do you think that so many of the people in this conference
became so friendly with one another?? Did you think we each checked
a bit in our heads (female == friend) and bestowed instant friendship
and acceptance for those who fit the bill? That's not what happened.
I've made MANY good male friends through notes (and through this
conference.) There are also some women with whom I've had almost
nothing but disagreements.
Friendships are formed by GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUAL
PEOPLE WITH UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES AND HISTORIES! Sharing a common
ground helps, too, but if you REFUSE to extend your hand in friend-
ship to noters in this conference, you'll get back as much acceptance
as you've given out: NONE!
It's not because you are a male. It's because you are perceived
as being hostile to this community as a whole.
We are forced to tolerate your presence (whether some of us like
it or not,) but even DIGITAL can't force us to like you if we don't
find anything worth liking about you (AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!!)
> Tell us who you are so we can judge your worth as a person -- until
> then, we refuse to grant you equal rights.
Not so. NO one has the "right" to be personally liked by everyone.
Are you confusing "equal rights" with acceptance of your personality
as an individual? It seems that way to me.
>It is disgusting. It is the thing which lets people treat human beings
>as non-human -- as slaves, as inferiors, as medical experiments, as
>people whose feelings do not matter. It is one of the filthiest
>characteristics of human nature. It is present in this conference.
Assuming the FILTHIEST AND MOST DISGUSTING motives to others is
far from kind.
It's no wonder you receive so little respect in this conference
(considering the way you treat the people here.)
|
| 1076.4 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Apr 04 1990 22:10 | 60 |
| RE: .0 edp
About Sandy's note...
> She states that ". . . we are asked over and over again to
> PROVE . . .", and she declares this to be sexist. This is a
> prejudgement, made based only the fact that men are asking women
> to prove here ...
Women *are* asked to "prove" things over and over (in ways that
men are not asked.) However, it isn't only men that treat women
this way. Sometimes other women do this to women, too.
It's part of the cultural conditioning involved with the way WOMEN
are treated in our culture.
A recent example to illustrate:
As much as I admire Sandy's decision to refrain from feeling forced
to include copious disclaimers with her notes, I still exhibit a
slavish devotion to words like "some" (to indicate that I don't
mean every man or woman on the planet when I use the words "men"
or "women.")
Although I would love to give up this obsession with disclaimers,
I don't feel it's practical for me. As many notes as I write,
if I stopped using disclaimers for a single day, I fear I would
become enmeshed in a quagmire of ratholes that would easily eat
up the remaining years of my life (with explanations about how
I didn't REALLY mean every LAST man in the Universe, etc...)
So I'm very careful about what I write.
Even so, I am frequently asked to PROVE my statements (as if the
disclaimers weren't even there.)
Recently (in another conference,) a number of people made the
statement - "Boys are taught not to hit girls." It was said over
and over without being challenged.
Then, I wrote a note (and put the same expression IN QUOTES!!!) and
I was immediately challenged to PROVE that every boy on our planet
received specific instruction on this. (It was a woman who jumped
down my throat about this, by the way.)
When I asked why she hadn't objected when others had written this
same statement, her response was that *MY* statement was written
to mean *ALL* boys (and theirs did *NOT* mean ALL boys.) Mind
you, I used the same expression they used (WITH QUOTES!!) - yet, my
saying the same thing was interpreted as "Every boy on the planet
Earth has received explicit formal instructions not to hit girls."
That's the way women are treated in our culture (and this difference
in treatment is VERY MUCH a double standard, and is VERY MUCH a facet
of cultural sexism against women.)
Two additional examples of this phenomenon happened to me in this
conference JUST YESTERDAY - one by a woman, and one by a man.
It happens to women a lot in our culture!
|
| 1076.5 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 04 1990 23:07 | 25 |
| Re .1:
You are basically correct. There are two minor corrections and one
more important. On the first two: The point about my motives is not
that they are noble but that they are honest. And I think we can avoid
making a judgement about whether Womannotes is sexist in general and
simply use the statement that it contains a significant amount of
sexism.
The important correction is that I do not feel disagreement with the
statement that Womannotes contains sexism is due to ad hominem
reactions. Actually, I do not think I stated anything about why a
person would disagree. Considering it, I can think of a variety of
things it can be; ad hominem is one. Another is the ubiquitous human
reaction to new things or challenges of all sorts: resistance. A
third is working from different principles, which lead to different
conclusions. A fourth is that the statement opposes goals some people
have, such as seeking an end to the oppression they have been the
victim of or seeking compensation or retribution or whatever a
particular person has as their own goal. I don't think people are so
simple that any one thing explains their actions even in just one
situation.
-- edp
|
| 1076.6 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 04 1990 23:19 | 28 |
| Re .2:
> Gosh, did someone forget to leave off the endless disclaimers again,
> Eric?
This is not about the form of the statements; it is about what they
say. Separate concepts of "male justice" and "female justice" is
NONSENSE, with or without disclaimers. You suggest each gender has a
"somewhat unique perspective". That is incorrect, regardless of what
form it is put in. Take any woman or any man and you are virtually
guaranteed that there is some person of the opposite gender who has
basically the same view of justice -- retribution, compensation,
forgiveness for the sake of improvement, whatever. I say "virtually
guaranteed" because the world is made up of 5 billion people, so there
are undoubtedly a few who have unique perspectives -- unique to
themselves as individuals, not to their gender. People so different as
not to have any peers among 5 billion people will be as different from
their gender as they are from everybody.
Being male or female would not give a person a unique perspective; it
would give at most a perspective only slightly different from average
on way or the other -- not unique, only slightly different, a
difference that is smaller than the range that is commonly held among
all sorts of people or even smaller than the range that an individual
person might vary within during their lifetime.
-- edp
|
| 1076.8 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 00:07 | 61 |
| Re .3:
> You issued complaints about how no one respected you, so a few
> people tried to HELP you by explaining how you might become more
> accepted in this community.
I do not question your honest intent. I think perhaps you see me in
the path of a speeding car, so you try to pull me out of the way -- but
you do not know this is a movie stunt, and your action causes the
driver to veer and crash.
In your note, you suggest that I should write in a particular style,
that I should "fill out" my image. You say that if I do not, I will
be met with rejection.
Well, I already know that. There is nothing for you to convince me of;
I already accept that as true.
And yet, I choose the course I do. There are reasons for that.
Consider the things peer pressure is used for. From the time children
enter elementary school, they are taught sexist roles. Boys who play
with dolls are taunted -- peer pressure is used to make them stop, to
force them to conform to a boy stereotype. Girls who play with toy
airplanes are similarly discouraged. This extends beyond gender to all
facets of life: If a person is different for any reason, they can be
shunned or discouraged. A person with a handicap is shunned; a person
with a different religion is snubbed when other children discuss an
event they shared. If you are taller or shorter, more intelligent or
less, extroverted or introverted, you are a possible target for
pressure to conform. Peer pressure is used to coerce people to do
things they do not want to do -- wear the right clothing, don't talk to
girls, lie about your date, hit the strange kid, don't tell the
teachers, try this.
Adults use the same peer pressure, on some of the same things and some
different. In addition to coercing people to do things they do not
want to do, peer pressure forms people into groups. If there are only
a few people with a particular difference, they will either conform or
be excluded. But if there are more than a few, they may be pushed into
a group of their own -- and that group will urge its own conformity.
People will condense around these groups, such as joining a religious
order. Now there are several groups at best tolerating each other,
often inactively opposing each other, and at worst at war.
Many participants of this conference recognize the inherent
discrimination in men associating with men in a company -- playing
racquetball and otherwise conforming to the male stereotype. Such
activity creates a chain of associations which cannot not have an
affect in employment. This human characteristic of encouraging
conformity no doubt has helped us survive in the past, but now it is
harming us by creating discrimination.
When a person tries to help you by suggesting that you conform, they
have the best of intentions. They are trying to ease your way into the
favored group, the group which has advantages over others. But they do
not realize they are playing their mechanical role in this clockwork of
oppression.
-- edp
|
| 1076.9 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 00:11 | 11 |
| Re .4:
> Women *are* asked to "prove" things over and over (in ways that
> men are not asked.)
I do not think you are correct in saying that men are not similarly
asked. That sort of thing is not at all uncommon in notes, not for men
or women or people of unknown gender.
-- edp
|
| 1076.10 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 00:52 | 62 |
| RE: .8 edp
>> You issued complaints about how no one respected you, so a few
>> people tried to HELP you by explaining how you might become more
>> accepted in this community.
> In your note, you suggest that I should write in a particular style,
> that I should "fill out" my image. You say that if I do not, I will
> be met with rejection.
Either you missed it, or perhaps I failed to make it clear in my
note -
The problem is that you are perceived as a hostile, threatening
presence in Womannotes. Refusing to reveal personal information
about yourself is secondary to this primary problem with your
image in Womannotes.
You may have noticed that some noters literally NEVER say much
about their private lives - and people are quite friendly to them
anyway (without suggesting that they "open up" here.) These
people have managed to build friendship and trust without talking
much about their own lives. There *are* a variety of ways to
build relationships, after all.
The people who suggested that you tell us more about yourself were
trying to help you find a way to build trust here. Considering
the hostile perception that people have of you, your options seemed
limited (and "opening up" might indeed have helped some people here
to build a more trusting rapport with you.)
You treated this offer of help as a "disgusting" and "filthy"
gesture (to quote you,) so the perceptions some/many people had
about you (as a hostile presence in this file) have been somewhat
confirmed.
If you don't intend to interact with the people of this conference
as an enemy that must be endured, it would help if you found SOME
way to lessen your threatening posture in the file.
If you fail to find "value" in every topic you read here (and if
some topics strike you as "nonsense,") hit next unseen.
It's pointless to ridicule topics and label them as sexist or
nonsense (expecting us to live up to your personal standards about
what is, or is not, appropriate material to discuss in this file.)
If any of us were so inclined, we could debate you to the ends of
the Earth in opposition to any view you hold about this file.
What would be the point, though? The community will discuss anything
it wants to discuss, with or without your approval.
If you want acceptance and respect from this community, it's quite
possible that you could receive it - by reaching out in some NON-hostile
way of your choosing.
Demanding acceptance and respect (accompanied by implied or explicit
threats of retribution) will never work in this community.
We get enough of this sort of thing in the rest of the world. Most
of us won't stand for it over a computer.
|
| 1076.12 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 01:14 | 20 |
|
RE: .9 edp
>>Women *are* asked to "prove" things over and over (in ways that
>>men are not asked.)
>I do not think you are correct in saying that men are not similarly
>asked. That sort of thing is not at all uncommon in notes, not for men
>or women or people of unknown gender.
The requests for "proving" that I'm talking about are made to women
FAR more than to men. The cases I'm referring to involve men and women
saying the same things, but only women being asked to "prove" their
right to say the things that men said without being challenged.
If you don't want to believe it, then don't.
However, don't expect the rest of us to agree with your denial.
We've seen it far too often to be convinced that it doesn't exist.
|
| 1076.13 | | CSC32::WOLBACH | | Thu Apr 05 1990 02:42 | 9 |
|
Suzanne, you make frequent references to "we" and "us." Are you
the spokesperson for some particular group? Would you please ex-
plain who "we" and "us" are?
Thanks.
|
| 1076.14 | Signing out... | HOO78C::VISSERS | Dutch Comfort | Thu Apr 05 1990 04:38 | 11 |
| This is a partial sign-out, I'm still in =wn=, read & write. But
the one thing I'm out of is edpnotes. I think edpnotes is the part
of this conference in which edp is harrassing =wn= and will not
cease before he has it his way. I'm no longer listening to his
arguments, my conclusions are drawn. I am too annoyed by the amount
of notes trashed. Pity of the concepts you have that hold some water,
edp.
Cheers,
Ad
|
| 1076.17 | This settles it. No furthur discussion from me on this. | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:03 | 7 |
|
In all my years in Womannotes, I can't ever recall another noter
(who was perceived as being hostile) being invited to share more
with others here.
I doubt that we'll see it again any time soon.
|
| 1076.18 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:30 | 6 |
|
RE: .13
"We and "us" refers to "me plus at least one other noter whose motives
and practices in Womannotes were assessed unfairly in the basenote."
|
| 1076.19 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:34 | 16 |
| Re .17:
You continue to focus on getting me to "go along with the crowd" and
ignore the problem that the crowd is doing bad things.
Why should a person want acceptance and respect from people who are
doing bad things, even if unintentional?
What should be my goal here: Getting people to like me or opposing
sexism? Which one is the right thing?
At what point should I give up my principles for the sake of personal
gain?
-- edp
|
| 1076.20 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:44 | 16 |
|
If you don't want respect from people here, then don't complain
when it isn't offered to you.
As for "noble" crusades opposing sexism in this conference - it's
just another example of the backlash that has always existed against
the women's rights movement:
Shove definitions and requirements of EQUALITY so far
down women's throats that they'll be sorry they ever
asked for it in the first place!
Launching a crusade against a minority in their own notesfile is
not a new concept.
It's been done many times before.
|
| 1076.21 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:51 | 15 |
| Re .20:
> As for "noble" crusades opposing sexism in this conference - it's
> just another example of the backlash that has always existed against
> the women's rights movement:
Saying so does not make it true. All of your responses attack me; none
demonstrate in any way that the statements I made about sexism in this
conference are not true.
You attack my statements for their form; you do not address their
substance.
-- edp
|
| 1076.22 | | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Thu Apr 05 1990 09:52 | 32 |
|
Unfortunately, edp may well be right about his prime thesis; that there
is a fair amount of sexism in womannotes/among womannoters. It has been
discussed, at length, in many other notes over a long time. The general
womannotes communite disputes the charge of sexism, or discounts it, saying
it's necessary because of the way women have been treated throughout the
centuries (ever since the first woman invented beer, as it were).
One of the minor, but annoying points brought out is the issue of "personal
information." This may be due to a particular form of cultural bonding
(possibly predominantly female: any anthropoligists out there?) in which
strangers successively reveal more personal information about themselves.
People who are unwilling to reveal anything about themselves in an atmosphere
where others do are distrusted, shunned, and, at worst, attacked.
I think edp or others who believe womannotes is (more or less) sexist
should either
-- accept the sexism, putting a sheet over their head like a Black visiting
a KKK rally, as it were.
-- participate in some other notesfile that satisfies their needs for fair
treatment,
-- or take their concerns to management (womannotes *may* violate Dec policies
against discosure of private information and sexual harassment, and
those policies are backed up by law).
After a while, continuing to write about sexism in womannotes is like
teaching a pig to sing...
Martin.
|
| 1076.23 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 10:09 | 17 |
|
RE: .21 edp
Your saying so does not make it true, either, Eric. (Nor does
Martin's saying so make it true.)
Nothing I could possibly say would be sufficient to demonstrate
to you the unfairness of your attacks against this conference,
so why should I bother to expend any more effort than I already
have toward this end?
If you want to wage another crusade (like the one against Soapbox
that lasted for months and months,) please go elsewhere.
A conference with a female majority makes a most appealing target,
I realize, as has been painfully obvious for years!
|
| 1076.24 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 10:14 | 10 |
|
Many crusades against women have been launched in our culture
under the guise of "fighting sexism or discrimination."
It's still a case of shoving definitions and requirements of
EQUALITY down women's throats as part of the backlash against
the women's rights movement.
Denying this won't make it any less true.
|
| 1076.25 | <*** Moderator Request ***> | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wully | Thu Apr 05 1990 10:27 | 6 |
| Okay, folks, time to switch from polemic to substance. "Sexism Against
Men in WomanNotes" might make a nice headline for the scummier tabloids
but it's far from a given. Cite or develop reputable statistics,
illuminate clear case studies, or take it to =soapbox=.
=maggie
|
| 1076.27 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 11:13 | 7 |
|
It's amazing how quickly some people adopt the language and tone
of an attorney while cross-examining women in this notesfile!
Well, if Womannotes is on trial yet again, then I suppose legal
jargon is appropriate in the course of judging the participants.
|
| 1076.28 | here goes | RAB::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Thu Apr 05 1990 11:25 | 94 |
| Well, I'm not really sure if I want to get into this but in the naive
and ill-considered chance that I can actually add something to this
conversation, here goes... :-)
What I perceive Eric (and others) saying is basically the following.
While group X (feminists) say they are fighting sexism, they exhibit
sexism behavior themselves (against men).
I wouldn't deny that this sometimes occurs. Especially if you use a
striclty logical definition of sexism (any kind of prejudgement based
on gender). In fact, I also have this reaction at times. Here's what
I have observed about it for myself.
1) Sometimes I feel I have a valid concern. There are many examples
of the oppressed becoming the oppressor throughout history. So I
think it is appropraite to express concern if the situation warrants
in as a gentle reminder that our end goal is the equality and respect
for all people so that we may all live in peace and harmony.
2) There have been times (especially as I was in the process of first
understanding feminism and the women's experience (not that it ever
ends)) when I found myself reacting to women's anger and saw it as a
rejection of myself. I found myself constantly looking for examples
of reverse sexism. Basically I consider this my own problem when it is
based on fear of rejection. I now understand that when woman are
angry about being oppressed and are pointing out their oppression, it does
not reflect on me personally as a man. In fact, as someone interested
in living without strictly defined and prescibed gender roles, it is
my interest in seeing them smashed and seeing awareness raised of how
they affect women.
3) I feel that, for myself, it is very important to first be aware
of, understand the women's experience first before I point out any
concerns about reverse sexism. Otherwise, I see that it is just a way
to deny the real sexism that exists in our society.
4) There is a tendency that we have, especially men, in my
experience, to deal with questions and issues on a stricly detached
and logical level. This is fine in some cases (for example when
studying science). However, I think it leaves a lot out. To to treat
reverse sexism as a serious crime on the same level of the oppression
that women have experienced for tens of thousands of years is at a
strictly logical level. Sexism = sexism. However, in my view, it is
a mistake to ignore the context of things. And the context of things
is thousands of years of oppression, women being raped, murdered,
abused, and exploited every minute of the day, women being treated as
less than human, women being discriminated against in the work place,
still earning much less than men, ... If the context of reverse
sexism had been the same, I would treat sexism and reverse sexism the
same.
5) People that have been hurt and mistreated are often angry. What
is the original cause of this anger? If the original cause is not
identified, then it seems like you (me) can get stuck in tit-for-tat
type of arguments where the cause of understanding each other in not
furthered.
6) I can get confused between equality of oppurtunity and everyone
being the same. It would be nice (maybe) if there were no differences
between the sexes, cultures, etc. But it is a fact that men and women
are raised differently, people from different cultures are raised
differently. So, it is helpful sometimes to make generizations based
on these differences (as long as they are statisically true or we are
reporting our experiences). We are not all the same. While it is
possible for people to overcome their conditioning, this conditioning
exists and influences our perception sometimes without our awareness
of them.
Eric has stated that the statement that men and women have difference
concepts of justice to be "NONSENSE". Besides the fact that declaring
something to be nonsense does not make it nonsense, Carol Gilligan
did study this for sometime and did not make it up but based it (as I
recall from reading the book "In A Different Voice") on interviews and
other evidence. So I'd like to suggest that Eric read the source
before proclaiming this statement to be nonsense. I hope everyone
realizes that statement like this are generizations, that of course,
there are many exceptions, disclaimers ad naesum...
7) I find it helpful to always keep in mind why I am here (on earth,
in this notesfiles, in my relationships with women, with everyone).
What is my end goal, is to help, to understand, to give what I have to
give. If my actions do not reflect my goals, I need to look at my
actions. When I find myself angry, confused, defensive, it is often
the case that I am acting for selfish ego-need reasons and not from
the knowledge and experience and understanding that everything in the
universe is interconnected, that at a very fundamental level "I" is
no different that "you".
john
|
| 1076.29 | thanks for the fresh air, john | VAXWRK::GOLDENBERG | Ruth Goldenberg | Thu Apr 05 1990 12:20 | 10 |
| john (1076.28)
I *know* I don't want to get into this debate, but I have
to express my appreciation for your note. It helps a lot to
remind me why I am here reading this notefile.
It's like a breath of fresh air or a drink of cool water in the
middle of a conflagration.
reg
|
| 1076.30 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Thu Apr 05 1990 12:48 | 49 |
| >3) I feel that, for myself, it is very important to first be aware
>of, understand the women's experience first before I point out any
>concerns about reverse sexism. Otherwise, I see that it is just a way
>to deny the real sexism that exists in our society.
I disagree with the implication that reverse sexism is not "real sexism." In
fact, I dislike the term "reverse sexism" for the reason that it differentiates
between identical activities on the basis of who is performing them- a no-no
in my book.
Sexism IS sexism. This does not imply that all acts of sexism are "the same"
any more than observing that marlin and guppies are both fish implies that
they are "the same." Differences in scope, magnitude etc do exist, but the
intrinsic flaw of sexist thinking remains the same for all participants whether
they belong to the predominately oppressed or oppressing group.
>To to treat
>reverse sexism as a serious crime on the same level of the oppression
>that women have experienced for tens of thousands of years is at a
>strictly logical level.
I'm not convinced that there is a significant push (ie backed by more than
an isolated individual or two) to treat female-male sexism "as a serious crime
on the same level (as)" male-female sexism. Regardless, the fact that a man
points out female-male sexism in no way mitigates the level of male-female
sexism. In the same vein, the fact that male-female sexism is more prevalent,
even more malignant, in no way mitigates the female-male sexism that occurs.
It is very important to keep female-male sexism in perspective. The converse
has existed on deeper levels for far longer a time. Yet it is intellectually
and morally dishonest (IMO) to deny female-male sexism because traditional
sexism is "bigger and badder."
I get the feeling that some women are not wont to admit when they have sexist
feelings or act in sexist ways because in some way that admission will
invalidate their complaints about female targeted sexism. It doesn't. Admitting
you fall into the same traps as men doesn't make your observations about the
inequalities of sexism any less valid or righteous.
Combatting sexism is a virtually endless battle for each of us who choose to
accept the challenge. Admitting you are not always successful merely
acknowledges reality. If we are going to root out sexism, we are going to have
to do it _together_. Admitting to each other our shortcomings isn't the same
as saying "forget it, I no longer have an interest in combatting sexism." It
also doesn't mean "Since I have stated that I am against sexism, my admission
of sexist attributes indicates I am not serious." It means- "hey, I'm human,
I can screw up, too. You help me and I'll help you."
The Doctah
|
| 1076.32 | | BUDDRY::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 14:04 | 9 |
|
Fortunately, the English language is rich enough in style and
tone to have provided us with a myriad of choices when it comes
to how we address our co-workers (peers!) at Digital.
Of all these choices, legalese cross-examinations and gradeschool
scoldings are ones I would consider among the *least* acceptable
(and among the *least* deserving of a direct response.)
|
| 1076.33 | "Nice notesfile you got here.... be a pity if it burned down..." | SNOBRD::CONLIFFE | Cthulhu Barata Nikto | Thu Apr 05 1990 14:06 | 45 |
| This slightly cynical note should probably go in the "HOT BUTTONS" topic, but I
think it is more relevant here. Obligatory Disclaimer: I do not claim to
speak for all men, all women, or all little blue smurfs. When I use the term
"we", I'm referring to the (mostly overwhelmed) community of womannoters who
cherish this file for what it was until recently. When I say "you", I am
referring to the recently disrupting influences who have (in my humble opinion)
created a lot of heat (and almost no light) and who are in the process of
turning this once useful file into yet another SOAPBOX.
-------------
It strikes me that what we have here is a variation on the old-fashioned
protection racket�. In this case, we're being told "Do it THIS way, otherwise
the conference gets trashed. But it will be your fault, because you were
warned."
On the one hand, we have notes like 1076.31 (and other recent notes) which
offer to turn up the noise and return to "pit bull" noting for a while, just
to teach us that certain people "will not be intimidated."
On the other hand, we have an increasing threat of involving personnel, EEO
action, and various levels of Corporate misery if we as much as question the
motives of one of the more prominent bullies in this school-yard. Of COURSE,
no-one would want to do such a thing, but even (self-proclaimed) honest and
non-sexist men might be driven to such an action if we don't shape up.
OK, guys, you've won. Feel better now??? You have power, you're right. You
CAN focus this conference on any topic that you demand we talk about. You COULD
go whining to personnel and have the conference disrupted/destroyed/held up as
a bad example ("remember the Sexcetera scandal? Maybe it would work again!").
How can we poor interacting mortals ever hope to compete with such power? How
fortunate that you have our best interests at heart.
Who, me, annoyed????
Nigel
Note: �: In the real world, a protection racket works like this.
Representatives of the local underworld (or gang) show up on the doorstep of
shops and offices in a given neighbourhood. The owners of the shop pay so much
money per month to protect their premises against a very specific crime wave.
Those who don't pay find their building vandalized, or suffer an expensive
series of thefts, or otherwise are singled out for attention.
|
| 1076.34 | hmmm | LEZAH::BOBBITT | the phoenix-flowering dark rose | Thu Apr 05 1990 14:36 | 11 |
|
a picture came to my mind as I read Nigel's note...
The Weasels from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" stroll into an office area,
up to a person's desk. They person is reading notes. One of the
weasels intones in an old-style Chicago? Brooklyn? accent....."Nice
conference ya got here, bub....be a shame if somethin' was
to....uh....happen to it......"
-Jody
|
| 1076.36 | | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Thu Apr 05 1990 16:33 | 29 |
| In general, I find Brian's analysis in .35 to be compelling. There is one
place, though, that I think it is seriously flawed; and that is in Brian's
analysis of edp's rejection of the notion of "male vs female justice". Brian's
statement:
> insistence that there is only one concept of "justice" denies the
> validity of anything purporting to be an alternate concept of justice.
> Thus, your insistence that there is only one concept of justice denies
> the reality of the female concept of justice -- for, given our
> culture, the societal concept of justice is the _male_ concept of
> justice.
seems to me to miss edp's point completely. Edp did *not* assert that there
is only one concept of justice, much less that the dominant concept of justice
of our particular culture is "correct". Rather, he asserted that, across
the world (and, implicitly, across time), there have been an immeasurable
variety of widely disparate concepts of justice; that none of these have
been the exclusive property of men or of women; and that therefore to label
any particular concept of justice as "male" or "female" is unjustified.
Since this is stated explicitly in the very sentence "The differences
between individuals of any combination of genders varies far beyond
the differences between the averages of the genders" which Brian quoted
and found "irrelevant", and since I did not observe *any* claim for a unique
legitimate "concept of justice" in .0, I am perplexed how Brian can have
arrived at the conclusions that he expressed in the passage that I quoted
above.
-Neil
|
| 1076.39 | Long trip to the fingertips? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Apr 05 1990 16:46 | 5 |
| Perhaps, Neil, because he was mentally conceptualizing "Amer-masculine"
justice and "Amer-feminine" justice when he read and wrote the
terms "male" and "female" justice?
Ann B.
|
| 1076.42 | ;^) | BUDDRY::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 05 1990 16:54 | 8 |
|
RE: .38 Herb
>!DON'T YOU DARE LET HIM HAVE THE LAST WORD!
^^^^
Him who, Herb? (Try saying *that* 10 times real fast!) ;^)
|
| 1076.44 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Thu Apr 05 1990 17:42 | 6 |
| inre .41
Mike could you give some specific examples. As it is now my
answer would be 'it depends'.
Bonnie
|
| 1076.45 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 18:10 | 44 |
| Re .20:
> As for "noble" crusades opposing sexism in this conference - it's
> just another example of the backlash that has always existed against
> the women's rights movement:
>
> Shove definitions and requirements of EQUALITY so far
> down women's throats that they'll be sorry they ever
> asked for it in the first place!
Am I wrong because I am a man shoving equality down a woman's throat?
Or am I wrong because my definition is incorrect? If so, what is
incorrect about it?
Is it wrong for a person to shove equality down another person's
throat? If it is wrong for a man to shove equality down a woman's
throat, is it wrong for a woman to shove equality down a man's throat?
Is it wrong to fight for what is right? Should people not struggle for
what is right?
I asked some questions in .19; they are serious:
What should be my goal here: Getting people to like me or opposing
sexism? Which one is the right thing?
At what point should I give up my principles for the sake of personal
gain?
Re .23:
> Nothing I could possibly say would be sufficient to demonstrate
> to you the unfairness of your attacks against this conference,
> so why should I bother to expend any more effort than I already
> have toward this end?
Perhaps there is no reason you should bother. Perhaps you should stop
and give some thought to the idea that there is some merit in my
statements.
-- edp
|
| 1076.46 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 05 1990 18:30 | 99 |
| Re .35:
> Given that same sex dating partners are at _least_ as "good" as
> different sex dating partners, excluding same sex members from
> consideration as dating partners is sexist, even under your definition.
Calling some partner as "good" as another is a value judgement. There
is no objective basis on which to say some form of sex is as good as
another form -- that is, and always will be, a matter of taste. My
definition of sexism was that sexism is making a choice based upon
gender when the choice is not supported by physical differences between
the genders. The physical difference between genders is significant in
the choice of dating partners.
It is like saying an apple is as good as an orange -- you cannot. You
cannot represent all the characteristics of things with a single
comparison. If an apple has crispness and an orange is tastier, is one
as good as the other? You can say they are "as good" as each other,
but there are still good reasons for a person to choose one over the
other. That fact, the fact that there is a significant difference,
makes the choice reasonable.
> Similarly, the only male/female clothing differences that are
> justified through anatomical differences are athletic supporters and
> brassieres.
That is true only for basic clothing, clothing with no purpose other
than to cover the body. But clothing is used for more than that. It
is used to make people attractive. And even disregarding societal
preferences for what particular things make the genders look good,
making people look attractive requires well-cut and well-designed
clothing -- it must accentuate the body. And bodies do have
significant differences other than genitalia, differences that interact
with clothing.
> Because you see the only difference between males and females to be
> the shapes of their genitalia, . . .
That is a totally unwarranted, baseless statement. I have at no time
and in no way stated that the only difference between men and women is
genitalia.
> Regardless of whether this statement is relevant (and I believe it to
> be irrelevant) or even true (and I believe it to be false), your
> insistence that there is only one concept of "justice" . . .
I said there were not separate male and female concepts of justice, but
I did NOT say there was only one concept of justice. I in fact
discussed fact that there are a variety of concepts -- but none of
those concepts are exclusively male or exclusively female.
Read my statements again: I did not in any way state that there was
only one concept of justice. I said people's concepts of justice
varied widely. I even allowed that the average of men's concepts and
the average of women's concepts might differ -- but that difference is
undoubtedly slight compared to the entire range of different views held
by individuals.
> I have trouble imagining how one man can have so much ego, Eric.
> Given the alternatives (i) all these people are talking about some-
> thing real that they can see and you can not, and (ii) all these
> people are imagining something that you can see is not there, you
> unhesitatingly chose the second.
There are more than two alternatives. People need not be imagining
things -- they can easily be coming to the wrong conclusions abou the
things they see. People are full of prejudices, of things taught and
not analyzed.
Flat earth, ether, phlogiston, N rays -- am I wrong or were those all
things people were imagining and that I cannot see?
> Eric, that you do not see something does not necessarily mean that
> it is not there.
Okay, that does not mean it is not there. What does mean it is there?
> Quit thinking of women as men who do not quite cut it, and learn
> what a woman is.
You have no basis upon which to make such an accusation. I have in no
way implied that people of either gender are inferior. I have in no
way implied that the actions of any of the participants in this
conference are due to their genders.
Your statement displays a gross misunderstanding of what I have said.
Continually throughout your response, you use made-up statements that I
never said: that there is only one concept of justice, that women are
inferior, that the only difference between men and women are genitalia.
I did not say those things, I do not believe those things, and I do not
see how you possibly could have gotten them from my note. They are all
foreign to what I was saying. You brought these statements in from
somewhere else.
Judge my note on what is in it, not on notions you are carrying around.
-- edp
|
| 1076.47 | | LITRCY::KELTZ | You can't push a rope | Thu Apr 05 1990 18:33 | 39 |
| Eric,
I am giving this some thought. I haven't come to any conclusions yet,
but I want you to know that what you said is causing at least one
person to take a second look at some things.
Some of the things said in this conference are indeed sexist. Many
get trounced. Some do not. I don't think it is possible to achieve
complete evenhandedness, at least not when moderators are being paid
to do something besides moderate this conference.
Frankly, having some things slip through the cracks or just let pass
has never much bothered me, because I didn't see any pattern to it.
Sort of figured it would all even out in the end, you know?
Well, that's not quite true. There are a few people who "get away"
with more hotheaded statements than the average person. I'm kinda
new here. I figured maybe it was seniority; or maybe it was just
a tacit understanding that a particular person needed to blow off
steam more than average and therefore we just take that as personal
style. I know that there are some noters I personally won't enter
into a topic with, because I believe it would be a waste of effort
and I have better things to do with my time than talk to someone whose
mind is already made up.
So I have seen differences in tolerance in this file, but had put it
down to author-tolerance, not position-tolerance. Looking at it from
a different perspective, it's true that the tolerated authors do tend
to espouse remarkably similar ideas. So I can see how those opinions
might seem to be condoned by the community.
Anyway, the question in my mind is WHY are these people tolerated or
quietly ignored by the community when they behave horribly, and other
people are severely chastised? I don't know the answer to that. I can
see how you might come to the conclusion that it is based on gender or
on "politically correct opinions". I don't agree with either conclusion,
but I can see how a person could reach it.
Beth
|
| 1076.48 | Don Quixote? Or Charles Bronson? Why is "opposing X" the prime directive? | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Thu Apr 05 1990 18:44 | 24 |
| > What should be my goal here: Getting people to like me or opposing
> sexism? Which one is the right thing?
Why is there a binary decision in everything? You appear to be presenting
yourself as a knight in shining armor, tilting at dragons and taking out the
occasional windmill.
How about this - your goal could be opening your mind and perceptions to the
experiences, beliefs, and viewpoints of the disparate group of women and men
who are present in this conference, with a global goal to discuss topics of
interest to women (the charter of the conference).
Tilting at every instance of sexism you see, however minor, is disruptive, and
ultimately non-productive. It certainly isn't going to reverse the course of
sexism (however perceived) to follow a course which causes your opinions to
be devalued. It's perfectly possible to have valid points which are entirely
co-opted by the manner in which they're presented. It's not unreasonably to
discuss sexism (of either direction) in this conference - specific topics
probably exist, and new ones, properly focused, could probably be started.
It is unreasonable (methinks) to enter the conference with the sole purpose of
"opposing sexism", ignoring all else. I don't know everything, or have all the
answers. Nor do you. Everybody can stand to learn. Which requires listening.
And sometimes. Writing. Short. Sentences.
|
| 1076.49 | insiders vs outsiders | ASHBY::MINER | Barbara Miner HLO2-3 | Thu Apr 05 1990 18:57 | 30 |
| Re .41
Yes, I believe that there are some specific things that I can do that are
not sexist, yet if Mike Z. does them they are sexist. :-)
It has to do with "group alignment" . . .
EXAMPLE: the word "girl". If I "go out with the girls" than I am including
myself in the group that I am belittling. If a male introduces us as "the
office girls", he is belittling a group that he has never/ can never be a part
of. Similarly, if a female manager introduced us as "the office girls", it
would be belittling and sexist.
The same reasoning applies to notes by men describing **women's** bodily
functions. If *I* say that menses are gross, I am describing my own
experience in the context that I participate in this "grossness" each month,
yet any comments about menses that are made by men are made as outsiders
and they sound more critical to my ears.
There are similar experiences that are not male/female related. My sister
can push my hot buttons more effectively than anyone else: she is obnoxious.
Yet, I say this in the context that I have shared more things with her than
with any other human (it will take my husband at least 10 more years to catch
up :-)). I LOVE my sister, so my critical comments should be taken in that
context. If any one else suggested that my sister is obnoxious, I would
definitely argue the point.
Barbi
|
| 1076.50 | can fix what you don't understand... | HYDRA::LARU | goin' to graceland | Thu Apr 05 1990 19:01 | 20 |
| re: <<< Note 1076.45 by JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
Is it wrong for a person to shove equality down another person's
throat?
I think it's wrong to shove anything down anyone's throat.
Before trying to solve the problem of sexism (or any problem,
for that matter), it's necessary to understand the entire
problem... sexism is as at least as much an effect as it
is a cause...
It seems to me that the way to understand the problem is to
listen... Given half a chance, it seems to me that the women
here are more than willing to let you know not only what they
feel, but _why_ as well. All one has to do is listen...
/bruce
|
| 1076.51 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Thu Apr 05 1990 19:19 | 11 |
| Beth,
I'd like to mention here speaking as a moderator, that a lot
of what we do dealing with individuals is invisible to the file
- as it indeed should be. We try and deal with people by mail
or phone call as much as possible. We try to avoid directly
confronting noters in file.
Bonnie J
=wn= comod
|
| 1076.52 | I am made of emotion as much as logic | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Thu Apr 05 1990 21:21 | 40 |
| In some ways Eric, you remind me of my former husband. Ray is the first
to defend everyone's right to be free. He espouses women's equality and
would fight for free speach. For everyone but me that was. I was his
wife and not entitled to the respect other women had. I had to toe a
line that fit the wife mold. He thought it prefectly resonable that I
should come home and make dinner while he jogged. Then he would rag at
me for not getting enough exercise. At parties he would sugggest I go
to the kitchen and speak with the women when I wanted to stay and
discuss issues with the men. In those same discussions he would fight
for women's rights.
You make me feel the same way he did. Nothing I could do was right and
my actions were held to a higher standard than others. I feel you are
holding us to a higher standard. That we shall be punished if we make a
slip. And you will punish us as men have often punished women, with
anger and rightgeousness.
Your claims of how horrid we are astound me. No one here has denied you
a job, a raise, an education. You compare our words (which have no
power over you) to slavery and denial of personhood. Allow us a little
of our own anger. Let us blow off a little steam. Men have mistreated
us and continue to mistreat us. What we have done in return is minor
and yet you would tie us to the whipping post to pay for those
transgressions.
You're right that some of the things said here are sexist. But that's
not the majority. And you are right that some women, myself included,
still harbor sexist feelings on some issues. But we've learned not to
trust men explicitly. They have turned on us too often.
I've never seen you and I would not feel comfortable if I had to be
with you alone at night. Is it because of what you say, no, kath gallup
has brought up many of your points and I feel safe with her. It is
simply and solely because you are a man. And statistics make you
hundreds of times more likely to hurt me just becasue of that fact
alone. And the fact that you are a well educated man doesn't decrease
the danger much. You bet I question you and your motives until I get a
better picture of WHO you are inside. Read the note from the woman who
was raped and beaten by the guy who supported equality in public and
considered her s slut in private when she repsonded as an equal. liesl
|
| 1076.54 | some comments | RAB::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Fri Apr 06 1990 18:53 | 73 |
| RE: <<< Note 1076.30 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy?" >>>
Mark, you are quoting my note and making conclusions and judgements on
what I am implying. Instead of getting into what I said/did not said
thing, I'd suggest checking out what you assume I am saying by asking
me before arguing against it or just stating your opinions without
reference to my note. Because we seem to be having a communications
problem.
To be honest, I'd be more interested in your own observations about
yourself concerning reactions to sexism vs reverse sexism. What I was
trying to understand, first in myself, was what happens when I have
kneejerk reactions against reverse sexism (for want of a better word).
[not directed to Mark]
I think I understand the logical level argument about sexism is
sexism. Do those in the sexism is sexism camp understand the "other
side"? I don't feel that this is the case as yet. I think that until
this happens this reverse sexism vs sexism game we are playing will
not resolve itself.
Is there a real awareness of the oppresion going on? Or does the
kneejerk reverse sexism reactions not allow one to see the magnitude
of the very real and oppresive sexism that is going on in the world
today? I have checked this out for myself and seen that this does
occur.
I'm not saying reverse sexism is right. However, I am trying to
understand it and see the big picture. With regard to right and
wrong, I try not and sit back and make myself judge of the world
anyway. However, I am responsible for my feelings. I'd like to
suggest that those of us who have taken the position that their
purpose is to point out examples of reverse sexism might try confining
themselves to describing how these statements affect their internal
state instead of bashing feminism or feminists or the entire
conference or telling everyone what is right or wrong as if they were
the moral referrees for the universe.
Also, I mean it seems to me that differences in value systems is an
integral part of the problem we are having. So we need to acknowledge
and understand these different value systems. Saying over and over
again that my value system is the right one isn't going to get us very
far (and I don't care which "side" you are on).
Maybe if we can confine ourselves describing our reactions as an
experiment, then we can allow each other space to change and to "come
over" to the other side. Let's face it, we have been locked into
extreme polarizarion on this issue many times and I am finding it
extremely tiresome (enough so if I wonder if reading this file is
still valuable to me). If we are to make any progress on it, I think
we are going to have to start talking about our feelings and trying to
understand where other people are coming from. So I'd like to hear
more about how sexism makes us feel (including reverse sexism).
The best thing I have learned from this file is how sexism makes women
feel. What a wonderful oppurtunity! I feel it has greatly helped me
in my relationships with my women friends and lovers. And that's why I
originally came here so I thank all of you who have contributed to
that increased understanding. Occasionally I have shared some of my
reactions to separatism, reverse sexism, but mostly to how prescribed
gender roles affect me. It would be wonderful if we could get back to
helping each other by understanding each other. To do that, we must
dare to open up ourselves and dare to truly listen to the other
without judgement. I mean life is short. We can spend our timing
fuming and flaming and getting aggravated but I personally other
things more rewarding.
I'd also like to thank Mark and others who have recently started notes
on revealing their own observations on their own sexism.
peace,
john
|
| 1076.55 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Mon Apr 09 1990 13:39 | 21 |
| >Do those in the sexism is sexism camp understand the "other
>side"?
I do.
I think it's significant to note that "sexism = sexism" is not the same as
saying "sexist act 1" = "sexist act 2," rather, it says the flaw in sexist
act 1 is wrong for the same reason as the flaw in sexist act 2.
>I think that until
>this happens this reverse sexism vs sexism game we are playing will
>not resolve itself.
I'm not sure you could find someone who thinks that FWO topics are just as
bad as not hiring any women for a certain type of job, so I think that there
is a consensus that some sexist things are worse than others. I think that, at
least from my perspective, the sexism = sexism crowd is not making judgements
of relative magnitude but observing that an identical operating principle is
in effect.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.56 | Clarification please | GEMVAX::ADAMS | | Mon Apr 09 1990 15:44 | 22 |
| re: .0
I am unable to understand the following points; would you please
explain further?
Towards the end of Part II you write of conference participants
denying "human recognition" and "equal rights." I can't see this at
all. Using yourself as an example--here you've entered a note and got
all kinds of responses. What is that if not recognition? As for
rights, it is my understanding that, as long as we follow conference
guidelines, we have the right to enter a note; to read or totally
ignore a note; and to form our own opinions about what we read. Tell
me, what other "rights" does noting confer and how specifically are
they being denied?
At the end of Part IV you write/agree "there are unwritten cultural
rules [that firmly control a woman's response]." Yet in the previous
sentence you say Ms. Ciccolini is wrong for saying that very thing.
Why is this? Are you wrong too?
nla
|
| 1076.57 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:04 | 21 |
| Re .52:
> In some ways Eric, you remind me of my former husband.
You take ONE single attribute about me, that I vociferously oppose
oppression, and you use it to fit me into a mold.
Damn it, you have to put aside prejudice and stereotyping. Just
because somebody else you knew was also vociferous does not mean I am
like them in other ways. You do not know me, but you are taking the
little information you have and plugging it into your preconceived
notions. You do not know what experiences I have or have not had, yet
you assume I have not had certain experiences and therefore you are
entitled to something I am not.
Stop it, just stop it. Stop classifying people as not entitled to
speak. If you cannot put aside your prejudice and NOT judge a person
on irrelevant things, how can you ask it of anybody else?
-- edp
|
| 1076.58 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:09 | 23 |
| Re .48:
> Why is there a binary decision in everything?
There is not a binary decision in everything; there is a binary
decision in the question I asked.
> How about this - your goal could be opening your mind and perceptions
> to the experiences, beliefs, and viewpoints of the disparate group of
> women and men who are present in this conference, with a global goal to
> discuss topics of interest to women (the charter of the conference).
If it is inevitable, relax and enjoy it. NEVER! My mind is open to
experiences, beiefs, and viewpoints. It is NOT open to sexism.
> Tilting at every instance of sexism you see, however minor, is
> disruptive, and ultimately non-productive.
This is not about tilting at every minor instance of sexism. Sexism is
pervasive and significant in this conference.
-- edp
|
| 1076.59 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:12 | 14 |
| Re .49:
> The same reasoning applies to notes by men describing **women's**
> bodily functions.
I have had enough of this garbage about how women were just discussing
their body functions and men came along and interfered. Yeah, right,
like men were not being accused left and right in that topic. The
topic was not just menses; it was another round of "men did this" and
"men did that". You want to talk about it, fine, but expect your
victims to defend themselves.
-- edp
|
| 1076.60 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:22 | 26 |
| Re .56:
> Towards the end of Part II you write of conference participants
> denying "human recognition" and "equal rights." I can't see this at
> all. Using yourself as an example--here you've entered a note and got
> all kinds of responses.
The statements of .0 were written before the responses here. They
refer to incidents elsewhere in the conference. In particular, several
people indicated my statements were being given less consideration than
they might because the readers did not know things about me.
> At the end of Part IV you write/agree "there are unwritten cultural
> rules [that firmly control a woman's response]." Yet in the previous
> sentence you say Ms. Ciccolini is wrong for saying that very thing.
I did not say she was wrong for saying there are unwritten rules; I
said she was wrong for claiming they were restraining her. Whether the
rules were being broken, whether they apply only when a person lets
them apply, or whether they do not apply in these cases, Sandy
Ciccolini was not being held back by the rules. Whatever the reason,
she was wrong to claim that she has been prevented from speaking her
mind in this conference.
-- edp
|
| 1076.61 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:29 | 16 |
| Re .50:
> It seems to me that the way to understand the problem is to
> listen... Given half a chance, it seems to me that the women
> here are more than willing to let you know not only what they
> feel, but _why_ as well. All one has to do is listen...
No, listening is NOT enough. Listening does nothing when nothing is
being explained. When I point out that Z explains X as well or better
than Y, then it does NOT do me any good to hear "You don't understand"
or "Shut up and listen". Repeating those a thousand times will not do
one damn bit of good -- the SPEAKER needs to say WHY Z is not as good
an explanation as Y.
-- edp
|
| 1076.62 | Yes my daughter, I want you to play chess | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Tue Apr 10 1990 01:24 | 43 |
| re: .58
"My mind is open to experiences, beliefs, and viewpoints.
It is NOT open to sexism."
Sexism is biological. There is nothing you can do about it.
That it abounds everywhere only confirms its truth.
The sexism of male - female preferences becomes quite clear
in the construction and nursing businesses. The first is
very highly male, the second highly female. The numbers have-
n't changed much over the years.
As a nationally ranked chess expert I've seen local and nat-
ional columnists try their *mightiest* to interest women in the
royal game. At least 2 decades of activism.
Some try so hard they blame the men - but it's the men who are
doing the encouraging - NOT the women. The numbers are still
like 98% men.
Housework, knitting, etc., are not male fortes either. Men
prefer dogs, women cats.
No amount of 'Rosie Greer' (sp?) examples of 'male quilt
knitting' will ever change that - unless mandated by law, or
a biological operation/manipulation occurs.
In a building where I work a high level sales woman once
responded to my observation of her being the next VP this way:
"Oh, I don't think I'd ever want to be a Vice President. Work
is the only thing on their mind, practically their whole life."
What I'm trying to say is to examine the way people are more
closely, and to examine the 'cultural determinists' who think
they can *change* the behavior/choices that people make (or
want to make in life).
People are who they are - sexism and all.
Russ P.
|
| 1076.63 | The backlash to the women's rights movement... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 04:38 | 56 |
| What we seem to be seeing in this conference (and in many other
areas of our society) is the idea that if women are going to ask
for equality, then we'd damn well better live up to the "ideals"
of said equality to within a .000001% degree of accuracy, or risk
being branded sexist and hypocritical in louder voices than *we*
use when we ask for equal education and employment opportunities.
This is the dynamic I was referring to when I brought up the notion
that people in our culture are "shoving equality down women's throats"
(as part of the backlash to the women's rights movement.)
Part of the demands made on women to "live up to the ideals of
equality" involves requiring that we never make *ANY DECISIONS
WHATSOEVER* based on anyone's sex (except possibly choices that
involve dating, sex or department store dressing rooms.)
If a woman says she would like to discuss menstruation with other
women without hearing the opinions of a whole lot of men on the
subject, that's touted as SEXIST! When anyone tries to object
to this label, someone comes along and says, "Would it be ok to
deny women jobs or educations??" (or some such,) as if the behaviors
are 100% equivalent.
We're often told, "Sexism is sexism" (which is a handy way of saying
that if the bounds of equality are overstepped by even the *tiniest*
margin, women can be damned as loudly and strongly for it as if we'd
started denying men the right to vote or to receive an education.)
Whenever anyone touts behavior like this as sexist, I ask myself
how I would feel if a man did the SAME THING (not the so-called
equivalent action of denying women jobs, but the SAME THING as
what's *really* being done by the woman.)
If a man asked for help making a decision about getting a vasectomy
and said that he didn't want to hear from a whole lot of women about
it, I would *NOT* consider it sexist! Therefore, it is entirely
consistent that I don't regard it as sexist that a woman might not
want to hear from a whole lot of men about menstruation.
Another example: Some women say that they have difficulty trusting
men (especially strangers in secluded areas at night) because of
the dangers of rape. Some people regard this as sexist. I don't!
However, I think to myself that if I met a man who had been mugged
by a woman (or who knew several men who had been mugged by women)
and he said he had difficulty trusting strange women in secluded
areas at night, I wouldn't regard this as sexist either!
Women are being asked to live up to ideals of equality that are
FAR, FAR more stringent than what we have asked of men, and I
regard these tighter standards for women as being the result of
cultural resentment of the women's rights movement.
Shoving equality down women's throats is the punishment inflicted
on women for upsetting the status quo by working for equal rights
in employment/educational opportunities.
|
| 1076.64 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 08:52 | 63 |
| Re .63:
> What we seem to be seeing in this conference (and in many other
> areas of our society) is the idea that if women are going to ask
> for equality, then we'd damn well better live up to the "ideals"
> of said equality to within a .000001% degree of accuracy, or risk
> being branded sexist and hypocritical in louder voices than *we*
> use when we ask for equal education and employment opportunities.
WRONG! I do not want to hear garbage about how things SEEM -- that is
only your way of IGNORING what I am really saying and painting your own
picture of what you want me to be saying, so that you can attack it.
If what I have said is wrong, then do not report what I have SEEMED to
say -- find where I have actually said something wrong, and show it to
us. This is NOT about .000001% accuracy; you flatter yourself. The
sexism in this conference is not .000001% -- it is prevalent, blatant,
significant, repeated, and overt.
"It's only a little sexism" is no defense, because it is incorrect.
"It is okay because men aren't held to the same standard" is no defense
because it is wrong. Your sexism is NOT affecting only the people
guilty of causing you injustice -- it is affecting OTHER, INNOCENT
people.
> Whenever anyone touts behavior like this as sexist, I ask myself
> how I would feel if a man did the SAME THING (not the so-called
> equivalent action of denying women jobs, but the SAME THING as
> what's *really* being done by the woman.)
That's the wrong question -- ask how the person touting your behavior
as sexist would feel if a man did the same thing. Does the SAME person
hold both genders to the SAME standard? That's the question that
reveals if sexism is present. You are not asking that; you are
considering if YOU, a DIFFERENT person from the original has the same
standard for a different gender. That doesn't reveal sexism; that only
reveals a difference between you and the other person.
> Women are being asked to live up to ideals of equality that
> are FAR, FAR more stringent than what we have asked of men, . . .
*I* am asking BOTH genders to live up to the SAME standards. Just
because you have not held other people to high standards does not give
you an excuse to act wrongly yourself.
> Shoving equality down women's throats is the punishment inflicted
> on women for upsetting the status quo by working for equal rights
> in employment/educational opportunities.
That's your fantasy. You have not based it on factual knowledge,
particularly not on information about me.
Asking for equality is my way of trying to end the unfairness *I* am
the target of. It is the same motivation YOU have when YOU ask for
equality. There is nothing *I* have done to you that entitles you to
be unfair toward me. Your unfairness is not excused by things
elsewhere in the world, things I have opposed.
Your gender is not some sort of badge that entitles you to spread
unfairness about on other people.
-- edp
|
| 1076.66 | More flawed logic | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Tue Apr 10 1990 10:32 | 47 |
| Suzanne> Whenever anyone touts behavior like this as sexist, I ask myself
S > how I would feel if a man did the SAME THING (not the so-called
S > equivalent action of denying women jobs, but the SAME THING as
S > what's *really* being done by the woman.)
EDP> That's the wrong question -- ask how the person touting your behavior
E> as sexist would feel if a man did the same thing. Does the SAME person
E> hold both genders to the SAME standard? That's the question that
E> reveals if sexism is present. You are not asking that; you are
E> considering if YOU, a DIFFERENT person from the original has the same
E> standard for a different gender. That doesn't reveal sexism; that only
E> reveals a difference between you and the other person.
There is a flaw here, Eric. No one is *required* to believe that something
*is* sexist simply because you think it is sexist. If you *truly* believe
it is sexist, then obviously you would find it sexist if *anyone*, of either
gender, did it. But if you tell me something is sexist, I have to evaluate
that action, and decide if I consider it sexist, as well. One of *my*
(and Suzanne's, apparantly) way of determining whether something is (in
my opinion) sexist, is whether I would consider equally offensive (or
inoffensive) if someone of different gender than the action in question
were doing the action.
That is, if you say that women keeping men out of a discussion on menses
is sexist, then (if I believed that you really thought it was sexist, and
were really against sexism) I would assume that you would also find men
keeping women out of a discussion on prostate infections sexist. But *you*
being consistent isn't enough to convince me. I have to evaluate my own
feelings. If I thought that the male-menses-exclusion was non-sexist,
but then I considered the female-porstate-exclusion sexist, then that would
be an inconsistency in my own view, and I would say "Ah, Eric is probably
right - I consider it sexist when men do it, therefore the reason I wasn't
seeing the sexism in the first example was because I didn't want to." If,
on the other hand, I find that both examples seem equally inoffensive to me,
then that test hasn't added any support to your claim that the action is
sexist. In fact, it would lend *negative* support, because I have found
through past experiences that one of the best ways to recognize something
as sexist is to be the *victim* of the sexism (or to imagine a situation where
you would be the victim.) If I did such imaging (by postulating the
female-prostate-exclusion) and I *still* didn't feel it was sexist, then I
would be inclined to disagree with your assesment even more.
In other words, your consistency would only convince me of your sincerity,
not your correctness. So it *is* appropriate to evaluate how *I* would feel
in the situation.
D!
|
| 1076.67 | set title="The Argument Note" | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Tue Apr 10 1990 11:42 | 35 |
| re: fun games with logic
>If,
>on the other hand, I find that both examples seem equally inoffensive to me,
>then that test hasn't added any support to your claim that the action is
>sexist.
D!, you are talking about whether a given action is sexist _from your
perspective_. He is talking about something that is sexist _from his
perspective_. It is inaccurate to say "it is not sexist because I am not
bothered by an analogous situation with the gender roles reversed," because
your standards for sexism and his standards for sexism may not be the same.
If edp claims that a female manager refusing to hire any males is sexist,
and you say it is not because (for the sake of argument, now) "I am not offended
by male managers hiring only males," you would fulfill your above crteria for
being not sexist, while nearly everyone would disagree and say it is indeed
sexist.
As far as I'm concerned, the most reasonable way to determine whether a given
action or attitude is sexist is by applying the definition "is the deciding
factor gender, without biological substantiation?" If it is, whether I am
personally offended by it or not, then it is by definition sexist. If we
determine that something is sexist by the number of people it offends, we are
taking the adjudication process away from the action, and placing it on the
audience- which does not make sense. Just because the majority of people are
not offended, doesn't mean the action or attitude is not sexist. What if the
audience is skewed?
If in a group of 10 engineers, there are only two males, comments made by the
majority that men do not have the patience to be "good" engineers are indeed
sexist, even if 7 of the 8 women say it is not and are not offended by the
words.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.68 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 13:14 | 21 |
| RE: .67 The Doctah
Let's try applying your scenerio to one example *I* brought up:
> If in a group of 10 engineers, there are only two males, comments
> made by the majority that men do not have the patience to be "good"
> engineers are indeed sexist, even if 7 of the 8 women say it is not
> and are not offended by the words.
What if this same group had a woman engineer who was known to be an
outspoken feminist (and who was having some difficulties with her
menses that she wished to discuss with others)?
If she decided that she only wanted to hear comments from female
engineers about it, what would you think if one of the male engineers
got wind of it and screamed "SEXISM!!!" to the high heavens based on
the idea that she based her choice of confidants on gender alone?
Would you consider it reasonable (or would you wonder if this man's
protest had MORE to do with seizing the opportunity to lash back at
this woman for her activities as a feminist?)
|
| 1076.69 | It isn't just 1's and 0's | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Apr 10 1990 13:27 | 20 |
| Mark,
You appear to be in the position of saying that if <a> says "Black
is white." and <b> says "White is black." then neither is necessarily
correct. In this, you are correct.
However, D! et al. are not talking about that. It is more a case
of "Ecru is a shade of grey." D! is suggesting you handle this by
taking out some ecru thread, putting it up against a grey fabric,
then, when you can't decide if it is grey or not, putting it up
against a beige fabric, and asking "Is ecru a shade of beige?"
What I really object to, is your hypothetical claim that D! just
might see a manager who hired only women as non-sexist. Now, a
manager who hired only people who scored above level <x> on a certain
job-related test, and who *therefore* hired only women :-)....
Ann B.
P.S. Ecru is a greyish beige.
|
| 1076.70 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Tue Apr 10 1990 14:07 | 38 |
| > What if this same group had a woman engineer who was known to be an
> outspoken feminist (and who was having some difficulties with her
> menses that she wished to discuss with others)?
> If she decided that she only wanted to hear comments from female
> engineers about it, what would you think if one of the male engineers
> got wind of it and screamed "SEXISM!!!" to the high heavens based on
> the idea that she based her choice of confidants on gender alone?
If she was talking about physical problems, then her choice of other women to
talk to (exclusive of men) would not be sexist, because the biological
difference between men and women prevents men from having first hand knowledge
about menses. If she were talking about the psychological aspects of menses
and in particular, the role men have played in creating bad feelings about
menses in women, she might be sexist in excluding men from the conversation,
depending on when and where she held the conversation. If she asked the entire
group for input, then shushed up men when they tried to add input (because they
were men and not because of what they were saying)- there is a good chance that
sexism would be in action there.
There is a big difference between public and private conversation. If you want
to talk about menses, and you only ask women their opinions- what's the harm
in that? It's a private conversation.
> Would you consider it reasonable (or would you wonder if this man's
> protest had MORE to do with seizing the opportunity to lash back at
> this woman for her activities as a feminist?)
In the scenario you outlined if I understand it correctly, the woman in
question utilizes confidants. That makes it a private conversation, and not
really subject to any charges of sexism.
If, on the other hand, she started a conversation about menses in the whole
group, and made statements about the psychological effects of men vis a vis
the menses, and refused to allow men to join in the conversation- that would
be a different matter.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.71 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Tue Apr 10 1990 14:17 | 32 |
| > What I really object to, is your hypothetical claim that D! just
> might see a manager who hired only women as non-sexist.
That was never claimed. I used that as an example of a case where someone might
say that something was not sexism because they were not offended by the action
(even if done by the other sex), but that most of us would agree that sexism
indeed was operative there.
> However, D! et al. are not talking about that. It is more a case
> of "Ecru is a shade of grey." D! is suggesting you handle this by
> taking out some ecru thread, putting it up against a grey fabric,
> then, when you can't decide if it is grey or not, putting it up
> against a beige fabric, and asking "Is ecru a shade of beige?"
I understand what you are saying here, and FWIW I agree with it. But, the thing
is, not everybody sees colors the same way. For example, the other day my wife
and I were looking at some bluish green fabric. To me, the fabric appeared
predominately blue; to her it was a shade of green. In the absense of any way
to measure the wavelengths of the light reflected off the material, we could
not come to an ultimate conclusion about what color the fabric really was. So
we would have to ask a few bystanders "What color does this look like to you?"
In the same way, what looks like sexism to one person may not necessarily look
like sexism to the next person- so we sort of take a survey and come to a
consensus. My only point is that even in this system, there is room for error
because the majority is not always right. That's really the bottom line to
what I'm saying.
I won't pursue the rathole about D! really thinking a sexist manager was
not sexist because it benefitted her, because it was used as an example of
an extreme, not a likely event.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.72 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 14:33 | 58 |
| RE: .70 The Doctah
> If she was talking about physical problems, then her choice of
> other women to talk to (exclusive of men) would not be sexist,
> because the biological difference between men and women prevents
> men from having first hand knowledge about menses.
This same biological difference also prevents men from having first
hand knowledge about many NON-physical aspects of women's lives, too!
> If she were talking about the psychological aspects of menses
> and in particular, the role men have played in creating bad feelings
> about menses in women, she might be sexist in excluding men from the
> conversation, depending on when and where she held the conversation.
What if she provided an opportunity for men to add their comments,
but merely prevented them from interrupting the particular conversation
she was having with other women? (Perhaps the discussion could take
place at two tables, and the men could hear the remarks at both tables
but would only be able to respond to the people at the "for general
discussion" table.) ;^)
> If she asked the entire group for input, then shushed up men when
> they tried to add input (because they were men and not because of
> what they were saying)- there is a good chance that sexism would be
> in action there.
What if the man started yelling (making insulting remarks about the
woman for having brought up a subject he considered "nonsense") and
when the woman asked him to shush his yelling, he screamed "SEXISM!!"
to the high heavens again (accusing the woman of shushing his yelling
ONLY because he was a man)? Would you consider the man's behavior
reasonable or justified?
> In the scenario you outlined if I understand it correctly, the
> woman in question utilizes confidants. That makes it a private
> conversation, and not really subject to any charges of sexism.
This isn't how you defined your criteria for sexism earlier in
this topic, though. You said: "As far as I'm concerned, the most
reasonable way to determine whether a given action or attitude is
sexist is by applying the definition 'is the deciding factor gender,
without biological substantiation?'"
Your deciding factor had nothing to do with whether or not the
decisions were made about public versus private conversations.
> If, on the other hand, she started a conversation about menses in
> the whole group, and made statements about the psychological effects
> of men vis a vis the menses, and refused to allow men to join in the
> conversation- that would be a different matter.
If the men were allowed to join in the conversation with the women
in the group who didn't mind hearing their comments, how is it sexist?
They haven't been prevented from speaking, in that case.
Or is it simply sexist for an individual to care more what WOMEN say
about menses than what men have to say about it?
|
| 1076.73 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Tue Apr 10 1990 15:11 | 60 |
| > What if she provided an opportunity for men to add their comments,
> but merely prevented them from interrupting the particular conversation
> she was having with other women?
I would say she was treating them as second class citizens and I would
disapprove.
> What if the man started yelling (making insulting remarks about the
> woman for having brought up a subject he considered "nonsense") and
> when the woman asked him to shush his yelling, he screamed "SEXISM!!"
> to the high heavens again (accusing the woman of shushing his yelling
> ONLY because he was a man)? Would you consider the man's behavior
> reasonable or justified?
If she was trying to shush his "yelling" and get him to return to a normal
tone of voice that everyone else was using, it would probably be a reasonable
request. If she was pissed because he stridently brought some points to bear
that substantially poked holes in the currently accepted position and sought
to shut him up so they wouldn't have to address his points, that would be
another matter. So the answer is "it depends."
> This isn't how you defined your criteria for sexism earlier in
> this topic, though.
I defined my criteria for sexism as you quoted. However, the private nature of
the conversation makes the charge of sexism irrelevant. It is not related
to the subject at hand, which is how the woman in question interacts with her
coworkers. Whether she also has after work interactions with a subset of these
coworkers is not germane to the situation.
> If the men were allowed to join in the conversation with the women
> in the group who didn't mind hearing their comments, how is it sexist?
That wasn't what I said, though. I said they were not allowed to join in while
the women made statements about men.
> Or is it simply sexist for an individual to care more what WOMEN say
> about menses than what men have to say about it?
Well, I think it's perfectly within one's rights to ignore what men say, but it
sure could be self-defeating. Going back to the scenario, we have 2 men and
8 women, and the women are talking about menses. What is unknown to the women is
that one of the men spent several years training as a gynecologist, specializing
in endometriosis, etc. He happens to have amassed a considerable amount of
second hand knowledge, and happens to know of a method to reduce severe
cramping that has worked well for women he has known in the past. The course
of the women's conversation takes them through the topic of cramps, and it turns
out that one of the women has a terrible problem with cramping. When the man
attempts to share his knowledge on the subject, he is abruptly snubbed and
told "What do you know? You've never had menstrual cramps." So he shuts up, and
the woman continues to experience her cramps. End result: the woman based her
exclusion of the man's opinions on the fact that he was male. She ended up
wasting what could have been a valuable resource. Was it her right to do that?
Sure. Was it smart? You be the judge.
Lest you think I'm one way, I happen to think that many more good ideas are
wasted by men because they came from women than vice versa (or the men adopt
them as their own, depriving the rightful owner of the idea of the credit).
The Doctah
|
| 1076.74 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 15:31 | 47 |
| RE: .73 The Doctah
>> What if she provided an opportunity for men to add their comments,
>> but merely prevented them from interrupting the particular
>> conversation she was having with other women [about menses.]
> I would say she was treating them as second class citizens and I
> would disapprove.
In this case, I would say that you use the term "second class
citizen" awfully doggone loosely (considering that others saved
it for situtations such as living in societies where they could
not vote nor own property.)
> If she was pissed because he stridently brought some points to bear
> that substantially poked holes in the currently accepted position
> and sought to shut him up so they wouldn't have to address his
> points, that would be another matter.
In my scenerio, the man isn't being shut up. His yelling has been
pointed out, but he's still continuing to yell.
The only difference is that his yelling is taking place at a table
where he is not in a position to interrupt the women who wanted to
talk about this with other women only (but people can hear his points,
whether those points happen to be valid or not.)
> Whether she also has after work interactions with a subset of these
> coworkers is not germane to the situation.
Interesting. Do you consider VAXNotes a "work situation" or an
"extra-curricular activity with people who work for the same company"?
> That wasn't what I said, though. I said they were not allowed to
> join in while the women made statements about men.
This is *my* example, Doctah, not yours! ;^) I say they were
allowed to make their comments to the women in the group who didn't
mind hearing about them.
> Well, I think it's perfectly within one's rights to ignore what men
> say, but it sure could be self-defeating.
Women are capable of assessing this risk for ourselves.
We do agree, however, that it isn't sexist to ignore personal advice
from men about things like menses.
|
| 1076.75 | Not an issue of majority | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Tue Apr 10 1990 17:53 | 76 |
| >It is inaccurate to say "it is not sexist because I am not
>bothered by an analogous situation with the gender roles reversed," because
>your standards for sexism and his standards for sexism may not be the same.
Sure, it might be accurate to say that. I have a definition of sexism.
Harry has a different definition of sexism. My definition, in part, rests
on symmetry across genders (or at least, my test for whether something
*meets* the definition.) So - I use the test, and using it, determine
that something is not sexist. *Obviously* if I say that, it is by my
definition - if I want to convince Harry that it isn't sexist, I have to
either convince him that 1) it does fit his definition, or 2) my definition
is better than his.
What does differing definitions have to do with correctness? I think we
(in this file) often get caught up in too much reletavism - "his truth"
and "her truth"..."her definition" and "other-her definition". True, we
believe different things - but that doesn't mean some of us are wrong, and
some of us are right. If I say something is sexist, what I am really saying
is that 1) it meets my defn' of sexism, and 2) I believe my def'n to be
correct. Both claims are of course open to debate.
> If edp claims that a female manager refusing to hire any males is sexist,
>and you say it is not because (for the sake of argument, now) "I am not offended
>by male managers hiring only males," you would fulfill your above crteria for
>being not sexist, while nearly everyone would disagree and say it is indeed
>sexist.
Of course. If someone held the above stated view, then I would say that their
definition was wrong. (As I said, the "gender symmetry" rule is more a test
to lend or withdraw *support* for sexism or lack-of - not to prove it one
way or another.) Eric saying something doesn't make it True. My saying
something doesn't make it True either. But until Truth has been verified, I
have as much right to defend my definition (and use my tests), and to argue
aginst someone else *using* that definition and those tests, as they do to
hold their opinion.
> As far as I'm concerned, the most reasonable way to determine whether a given
>action or attitude is sexist is by applying the definition "is the deciding
>factor gender, without biological substantiation?"
I would disagree with your definition. And also with your test. I don't think
it is so simple to determine if something is sexism or not. Sometimes
a direct aplication of the definition doesn't work (too difficult,
ambiguous, whatever) and other tests must be used. (Like, no one finds
velocities/slopes/derivatives using the definition of Limits - they just
use those nice simple rules that are related to the definitions that we
learned in HS...some times the definition, while always correct, isn't
the most efficient or effective way to arrive at a conclusion.)
So - one of the tests I use (when where something fits into the definition
isn't clear) is to see if *I* would feel discriminated against if the
action were against me. It's a good rule of thumb that I find works
pretty well - and if Harry and I disagree, I mgiht try to convince him
that my rule of thumb is reliable.
>If we
>determine that something is sexist by the number of people it offends, we are
>taking the adjudication process away from the action, and placing it on the
>audience
Whoa, whoa, whoa! What are you talking about, Doctah? Inever said anything
about arriving at a decision by consensus! I am talking about me and Harry
disagreeing. Either on definitoins, valid tests, or applicability. I
apply my test and find that by my def'n, it's sexist. He applies his test
and finds that it isn't. We disagree, and try to resolve it by convicing
the other of the validity of our definitions/tests whatever. What on earth
does the "audience" have to do with it? I cannot figure out how the
"majority" got into this discussion.
I am not saying that my deciding something is sexist guarantees that it is.
I am just saying that in discussing sexism, I have to decide for myself
(and others can argue with me, hoping to convince me to decide on their
side), and then work from there. I think "gender symmetry" is a good test,
and therefore I will use it in coming to my own conclusions about whether
something is sexist.
D!
|
| 1076.76 | | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wully | Tue Apr 10 1990 18:14 | 13 |
| I think the issue here is: is "sexism" a neutral term like
"discrimination", where the goodness or badness of it depends on the
context and so forth.
Mark's definition says "no, sexism is always bad and we test for it by
deciding whether the act in question is based on sex membership".
D's (and mine) says "yes, there are some things that are technically
'sexist' but not harmful, as providing separate-but-equal lavs or
whatever, and we test for it by determining whether we would object to
the flip side".
=maggie
|
| 1076.77 | flail away | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Apr 10 1990 18:34 | 13 |
| Oh this is starting to be fun. What a revelation. Eirc, I only said in
"some" ways you reminded me of my husband. I was hardly forcing you
into his mold.
But that's not what is fun, ohno. It's that a man can YELL AND SCREAM
at me in notes and I DON'T HAVE TO BE AFRAID HE'LL BEAT ME cause I
live 2ooo miles away and he can't reach me. What freedom, I can say
what I believe and no matter how loud he shouts I'm in no danger. This
is what equality means. This takes away one of man's great powers over
women. The ever present threat of violence if we don't agree.
Is something sexist if it's true? Is saying men are the most dangerous
thing a woman has to deal with in her life a sexist statement? liesl
|
| 1076.78 | request to edp | RAMOTH::DRISKELL | | Tue Apr 10 1990 18:45 | 23 |
| RE: 1076.57
EDP,
in this note you made several statements that read like commands.
"you have to put aside.... Stop it, just stop it..." and the like.
I strongly object to notes that are entered in that fashion. It
offends me, threatens me, (even when not directly *aimed* at me), and
creates a strong barrier to my active participation in this conference.
Would you consider phrasing all future comments as either request,
"I would prefer it if you would put aside... would you please stop
doing this..."
or as comments on how it makes you feel? I am not asking you to change
past replies (though I would consider it an indication of your
willingness to foster communication in this forum) but to moderate your
future ones.
thank-you
|
| 1076.79 | | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Tue Apr 10 1990 19:12 | 21 |
| re: .78: re: .57:
in this note you made several statements that read like commands.
"you have to put aside.... Stop it, just stop it..." and the like.
I strongly object to notes that are entered in that fashion.
I don't want to put down the author of .78, but, since you don't know
what is going through Eric's mind, you might consider treating his
request to "Stop" as if was said to you by a lover when you wanted to
do something he/she didn't.
I.e., "No means No" ought to be applicable to notesfile discussions, not
just one's personal life.
Without having any knowledge one way or another, I would presume that
Eric isn't trying to offend you but rather saying that this is something
he doesn't want to discuss in a public forum.
Martin.
|
| 1076.80 | | SOFBA1::LIVINGSTONE | in the nick of time | Tue Apr 10 1990 19:17 | 3 |
|
kudos
|
| 1076.81 | something worth reading! | DECWET::JWHITE | comedy in real life | Tue Apr 10 1990 19:27 | 4 |
|
re:.77
thank you for writing; this is important stuff.
|
| 1076.82 | | RAMOTH::DRISKELL | | Tue Apr 10 1990 19:39 | 21 |
| Martin,,
"Stop it." by Engish grammer is a declarative command.
It offends me to hear such in a conference that is uniquely created to
be supportive and usually succeeds. I will cringe and ignore it in
others, but here I feel supported enough to speak out.
Martin, it offend me. EDP's intentions are irrelevant. It offends me.
EDP has the right to choose what he does, but the fact that he is not
intentionally aiming this 'spite' (my word, my connotation) at me has
no bearing on the fact that it offends me. Strongly.
Having been informed that his words are offensive to one member of this
community, I would hope that he would choose to be considerate enough
to state his thoughts in a different manner. I know I would (will) if
informed that I have offended others. And several (most) of this
conference do likewise. (Ex. The comments about secretary's in the
personal sexism string, and the author apologising afterwards. She had
not intended her words to be offensive, but having been informed that
they were, took appropriate actin (IMHO)
|
| 1076.83 | | CONURE::AMARTIN | Marvin Gaye, Rest in pease | Tue Apr 10 1990 20:06 | 20 |
|
re" last...
In my very humble opinion... "so what?"
I (and others I am sure) find many things that are said within the
confines of this tube very offensive, so what......
Fem humor "read at your own risk" is a swell example of this.
Fem Humor is nothing but sanctioned rudeness towards a particular
gender. "jokes" aimed at "the other gender" would NEVER be allowed,
don't you agree? As a matter of fact, jokes against ANY 'protected
minority" is prohibited and imediately deleted. Furthermore, Personnel
action CAN be taken AGAINST said offender by ANYONE whom might come
across said comments.
"Stop it" comments or "feminist humor" what the hells the difference?
Gender? Sanctioned....nonsanctioned?
I say again, "so what?"
|
| 1076.84 | | SOFBA1::LIVINGSTONE | in the nick of time | Tue Apr 10 1990 20:16 | 3 |
|
kudos
|
| 1076.85 | Have you walked in his shoes? | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Tue Apr 10 1990 21:18 | 21 |
| re: .82:
Martin, it offend me. EDP's intentions are irrelevant. It offends me.
Indeed, but I would ask you to consider Eric's situation: part of the Womannotes
community (including, as he has said elsewhere, several moderators) asked
him to talk about himself; something he says he does not wish to do.
When he did talk about himself, he stated (as I recall) that this part of
his note is for your information, but not for discussion.
Some (other) part of the womannotes community chose to disregard his
request. Eric said "Stop."
Now, what should he have said? If he says "Stop", you're offended. If he
doesn't, people who won't acceed to a polite request offend him.
Who is more offended? While one may certainly wish that he could have
formulated his request in a manner that is both effective and non-offensive,
I don't think he should be blamed when the actions of a minority of this
community make this impossible.
Martin.
|
| 1076.86 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:02 | 57 |
| Re .65:
> Now, if one regards "sex based" as meaning "determined by sex,"
> then edp is indeed correct. On the other hand, if one regards "sex
> based" as meaning "associated with sex," then edp is incorrect.
"Associated" is an incorrect term; the distinction you are trying to
describe is that of determination (absolute cause) versus a causal, but
not entirely deterministic, relationship. "Associated" only indicates
a correlation, not a causal relationship.
However, I addressed this already, in that I admitted there may be
differences between the averages of men's concept of justice and
woman's concept, supposing one can find some way to define an "average"
of a "concept" of justice. I indicated that the difference between the
averages was likely to be small compared to the range of individual
variation.
In other words, not only do I unerstand that "binary logic" is not the
only application that can be made, I understand probability
distributions, statistical significance, and cause versus correlation
-- and not only do I understand it, but I included consideration for
all this in my original statement, and your responses entirely miss the
mark.
> That appears to me to be a value judgment. Frankly, I prefer
> clothing to be comfortable.
Yes, it is a value judgement -- and that is the point. It is a value
judgement, so it is not one you can assert incontrovertibly; it is a
judgement reserved to each person to make according to their
preferences. Thus, you cannot claim one sexual partner is as good as
another, so anybody who makes a distinction is sexist.
> No, Eric, I don't believe it does. I do, however, believe it
> displays an understanding of what you _didn't_ say.
When I tell you you have misunderstood, take my word for it. There is
no way at all for us to communicate if you refuse to accept MY
statement of what I am trying to say.
> Quit thinking of people who disagree with you as wrong, and start
> learning what a "viewpoint" is.
Sometimes different viewpoints are valid. Sometimes they are not. The
physical world has no opinion on whether art is pleasing. Anybody can
choose whatever they prefer in that matter without consequence. But
the physical world does have an opinion on the matter of falling off
cliffs -- it is dangerous. Anybody can choose whatever they prefer in
that matter, but those who choose an opinion different from the opinion
of the world will get hurt. When the physical world and a person
conflict, the physical world wins every time.
On those viewpoints, there is a right and a wrong.
-- edp
|
| 1076.87 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:12 | 42 |
| Re .66:
> There is a flaw here, Eric. No one is *required* to believe that
> something *is* sexist simply because you think it is sexist.
No such thing was said!
> One of *my* (and Suzanne's, apparantly) way of determining whether
> something is (in my opinion) sexist, is whether I would consider
> equally offensive (or inoffensive) if someone of different gender than
> the action in question were doing the action.
That is NOT what Suzanne said. Suzanne did not say she was comparing
her opinion if someone of different gender did the action to _her_
opinion on the original person doing the action -- she said _only_ she
considered her opinion if a man did the action. Somebody presents the
opinion that X is sexist if a woman does it -- and Suzanne, according
to her words, considers whether X is sexist if a man does it.
Apparently, if she does not consider X sexist if a man does it, she
rejects the complaint as sexist itself.
That entirely MISSES this situation:
Somebody has the opinion that X is sexist if a woman does it.
Somebody has the opinion that X is sexist if a man does it.
A woman does X. The somebody says it is sexist.
Suzanne has the opinion that X is not sexist if a woman does it.
Suzanne has the opinion that X is not sexist if a man does it.
Suzanne rejects the complaint as sexist.
Do you see what is wrong here? I am accused of not seeing other
people's viewpoints, but here I am the person who does see them --
there are multiple viewpoints here, and the interaction between people
is causing the wrong conclusion to be made.
In the above situation, both the somebody and Suzanne have equalitarian
opinions -- different opinions, but both opinions that are not sexist.
But because of the question Suzanne asks herself, she comes to the
incorrect conclusion that the complaint is sexist.
-- edp
|
| 1076.88 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:17 | 13 |
| Re .77:
> What a revelation. Eirc, I only said in "some" ways you reminded me
> of my husband. I was hardly forcing you into his mold.
No, that is not all you said. First you said that in some ways I
reminded you of your husband, and you described something I had in
common. Then you went on to describe other characteristics of him,
suggesting that I might share those characteristics. Yes, you pushed
part of me into the mold of those characteristics.
-- edp
|
| 1076.90 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:25 | 11 |
| Re .82:
> Having been informed that his words are offensive to one member of
> this community, I would hope that he would choose to be considerate
> enough to state his thoughts in a different manner.
The note I was responding to made baseless, improper accusations about
me. How do you tell an attacker to stop?
-- edp
|
| 1076.91 | Take MY word for it... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:28 | 12 |
|
.86> When I tell you you have misunderstood, take my word for it.
.86> There is no way at all for us to communicate if you refuse to
.86> accept MY statement of what I am trying to say.
.87> That is NOT what Suzanne said.
D! was correct in her description of what I said.
You are the one who misunderstood, Eric.
|
| 1076.92 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:51 | 36 |
| Re .63:
There is something that I do not feel I have expressed yet -- something
about who the victims of your sexism are. Do you think they are only
people who themselves are guilty, people who can certainly withstand a
return of what they have dished out?
Let us take as given that you are 99.44% pure, that only .56% of your
actions are sexist. How is a person affected by your .56% sexist
actions supposed to feel? Is this person supposed to be happy that
they were treated unfairly by a person who is 99.44% good? Is this
person supposed to take solace in the fact that 99.44% of the time, you
are being good to others, even if they do not benefit from it?
Do you think your .56% only affects people who receive no other
injustice? Women are not the only victims in this world. A simple
list of words depicts human nobility: pogrom, slave, holocaust, jihad,
crusade, chattel, tyrant, persecute. And when we do not have any of
the above going, we keep a continual undercurrent of oppressing
differences, as I explained previously -- there are continual
influences in our society to make people who are different feel bad.
Consider a person who is a member of a victimized group, or of several
groups. They have spent quite enough time trying to get through the
influences against them. Then along comes your .56%. How does your
act compared to the other acts against this person? Do they care that
it is only .56% of what you do? No, to them it is just one more in a
long line of slights. Your 99.44% does nothing to help this person.
Do you think your .56% is only a return for what you have received? It
is not. It is not returned; it is just passed on to somebody else.
You have not compensated anything; you have only created more
injustice.
-- edp
|
| 1076.93 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Apr 10 1990 23:58 | 5 |
|
The flaw in your logic is that you have failed to prove that
the actions I mentioned *are* sexist, which makes the rest of
your comments about such actions moot.
|
| 1076.94 | That isn't what *I* call openning up | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Wed Apr 11 1990 00:02 | 26 |
| Eric and Martin (and I think some other people) have said (at least
a couple of times) that Eric ("finally") "gave in" and talked about
himself in the base note (presumably for our collective edifiction.)
I just went back and re-read the base-note, and had the same reaction
I did when I first read it - all claims to the contrary, I *still* don't
know anything about Eric Postpischil the person.
All you said, Eric, was that you fight for freedom and against oppression,
and gave a couple (or three) examples where you have done so in the past.
We knew that much already - you say time and time again that you consider
oppression (in particular sexism) wrong, and you prolific notes indicate
that you do fight it where you perceive it to be. The only "motivations"
you listed where a vague reference to having at some point been oppressed,
and a conviction that opression is Bad. Pretty general. So - where has this
from-the-heart openning up of yourself occured? I must have missed it.
Now, I don't think people should be required to give any information
about themselves that they don't want to...if you don't want to, fine.
I won't think less of your arguments. (Although it is likely when there
is something *ambiguous*, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt without
knowing something about you.) But I don't understand these claims
that now that you've opened up about yourself, that all the people who wanted
you to open up about yourself should feel appeased.
D!
|
| 1076.95 | Questions without answers | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Wed Apr 11 1990 00:07 | 46 |
| re: .90:
The note I was responding to made baseless, improper accusations about
me. How do you tell an attacker to stop?
An interesting question, and possibly worthy of a basenote.
Just as I asked a participant to walk in your shoes, I would ask the same
of you. Are all of these "attacks" really attacks? Is a formal, theoretical,
point-by-point debate style the best choice in a culture that seems to place a
high value on sharing, cooperation, consensus, and communication?
This is not to suggest that a strictly logical approach is wrong, but does
it communicate? Do your readers both listen AND hear what you say, or do
they hear other voices speak with your words? What is Lise really telling
you when she says that you remind her of her ex-husband? Something you said,
or the way you said it, reminded her of a painful time in her life. I'm
sure that wasn't your intent, but her note told me that you DID frighten her.
Why? Do you understand her reaction? Will you ever be able to communicate
with Lise until you understand why she reacted that way?
Assume she is being fair and honest: something you wrote hurt her. When
you wrote "Stop!" you hurt someone else. When you write "don't talk
about me personally" you push against a tradition (woman? womannotes?)
of sharing feelings. Until you learn to talk in womannotes like a
womannoter -- to talk about your own feelings and fears -- you will be
distrusted by this community. I'm certainly a good example of that.
And as long as you are distrusted, your contributions will be disregarded
or opposed -- specifically because they came from someone the community
learned to distrust.
Some of the people you characterize as "attackers" are just that. I would
recommend that you ignore them: don't read what they write and don't respond
to their attacks. Others who ask about your own feelings are trying to
build a person out of some isolated words in a notesfile -- their questions
are well-meaning from their perspective, even if you feel they're inappropriate
from yours.
Still others who write her appear to be frightened by thoughts and ideas that
seem to be isolated from feelings and emotions: for some this is a reminder
of a painful part of their own history. You need to be able to communicate
with these people, but you will have to change first because they are
listening more to the way you speak than to your words.
Martin.
|
| 1076.96 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 00:09 | 7 |
| Re .91:
Please explain whether or not you would come to the conclusion I
indicated in the situation I described in .87.
-- edp
|
| 1076.97 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 00:13 | 10 |
| Re .93:
Is that the only flaw in the logic? So then when I point out your
sexism elsewhere in the conference, the last gap is closed? At that
point, with your sexism established and the error of your ways
described in .92, you will admit that you are wrong and seek to correct
your behavior?
-- edp
|
| 1076.98 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 00:20 | 12 |
| Re .94:
What you got was enough to know that I had honest motivations. That's
all you need to know.
Yes, I admit that what I entered wasn't a lot. But just that bit was
used to compare me to a rapist. How the hell am I supposed to react to
that? Doesn't that comparison completely justify my reluctance to
enter anything?
-- edp
|
| 1076.99 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Apr 11 1990 01:04 | 15 |
|
> Please explain whether or not you would come to the conclusion I
> indicated in the situation I described in .87.
Your assessment of my statements was wrong. The conclusion you
drew from this faulty data was clumsily worded. D!'s description
of what I said was correct. You should have listened to her.
> Is that the only flaw in the logic?
No, Eric. Your logic has many flaws. You have failed to prove
a case for sexism against me anywhere in this file. All you've
done so far is to *mention* your accusations frequently (which is
not the same thing as building a case for them.)
|
| 1076.100 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 08:24 | 16 |
| Re .99:
> Your assessment of my statements was wrong. The conclusion you
> drew from this faulty data was clumsily worded. D!'s description
> of what I said was correct. You should have listened to her.
You did not answer the question. In the situation I described, would
you or would you not decide the complaint was sexist?
> No, Eric. Your logic has many flaws. You have failed to prove
> a case for sexism against me anywhere in this file.
If the logic has other flaws, please describe them.
-- edp
|
| 1076.101 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | festina lente - hasten slowly | Wed Apr 11 1990 08:43 | 6 |
| re: .95
wow
-Jody
|
| 1076.102 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Apr 11 1990 09:24 | 5 |
| in re .101 in re .95
what she said
Bonnie
|
| 1076.103 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | lately I get a faraway feelin | Wed Apr 11 1990 09:48 | 6 |
| Re .95, yeah, that just about says it.
Re .94, I agree with you, too, D!.
Lorna
|
| 1076.104 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 09:48 | 6 |
| Re .102:
I agree.
-- edp
|
| 1076.106 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Wed Apr 11 1990 10:07 | 63 |
| re: D!
>What does differing definitions have to do with correctness?
Good question. It deserves a better answer than I have. :-)
We do not have access to the universal, ethereal yardstick for ultimate truth.
Thus, we base our own personal yardsticks on individual moral standards. And
in part, these personal yardsticks are influenced by "societal norms." Societal
norms are arrived at by a consensus, more or less. Most everyone believes that
cold blooded murder is wrong. Thus we place in the societal norms yardstick the
notch that signifies that murder is wrong, and regardless of one's personal
outlook, we treat that person as if "murder is wrong" is a notch in the
universal ethereal yardstick for ultimate truth.
Actual correctness, philosophically speaking, is related to the accuracy with
which one's personal yardstick (or society's, as the case may be) correlates
with the UEYUT (which none of us have access to... <yet>).
>If I say something is sexist, what I am really saying
>is that 1) it meets my defn' of sexism, and 2) I believe my def'n to be
>correct. Both claims are of course open to debate.
I agree with that.
>But until Truth has been verified, I
>have as much right to defend my definition (and use my tests), and to argue
>aginst someone else *using* that definition and those tests, as they do to
>hold their opinion.
And how does Truth get verified? Are you referring to correlating the differing
individual stands with the societal yardstick or with the UEYUT? Other?
>I would disagree with your definition. And also with your test.
That's your right.
>Whoa, whoa, whoa! What are you talking about, Doctah? Inever said anything
>about arriving at a decision by consensus! I am talking about me and Harry
>disagreeing. Either on definitoins, valid tests, or applicability. I
>apply my test and find that by my def'n, it's sexist. He applies his test
>and finds that it isn't. We disagree, and try to resolve it by convicing
>the other of the validity of our definitions/tests whatever. What on earth
>does the "audience" have to do with it? I cannot figure out how the
>"majority" got into this discussion.
Scenario: you say action X is sexist, he say it is not. You try to convince
him without success, he counters with what you consider to be uncompelling
arguments. Do you pull out the trump card "It is considered to be a sexist
action by societal norms given the fact it is explicitly contrary to national
legislative mandate..." ? That's where the majority comes in, when two people
disagree and bring the discussion to another level; "Well, 99% of the population
agrees with me, so there." Is communication taking place? Or am I sending a
series of bad packets? :-)
>I think "gender symmetry" is a good test,
>and therefore I will use it in coming to my own conclusions about whether
>something is sexist.
I do too. In fact, I frequently use it myself. But it is no guarantee that if
everyone uses it, everyone will agree about what sexism is.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.107 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Wed Apr 11 1990 10:09 | 7 |
| > Mark's definition says "no, sexism is always bad and we test for it by
> deciding whether the act in question is based on sex membership".
Aha- there's the rub. I thought we were talking about "Sexism" not "sexism."
My mistake.
The Doctah
|
| 1076.108 | Who is this -edp fellow anyway? | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Wed Apr 11 1990 10:20 | 42 |
| > What you got was enough to know that I had honest motivations.
No we don't. You basically said "I'm honest". That doesn't make you honest.
If I thought you had dishonorable motives before you wrote the basenote, then
I would still think you had dishonorable motives - you didn't *add* any
information.
What we got was enough that if we choose to believe the basenote, we would
believe you were honest. But if we thought you were dishonest before, then
obviously we are going to be skeptical bout believing the basenote.
I am afraid "I am honest" isn't enough to convince me that someone is honest.
I, for one, never questioned your honesty.
>That's all you need to know.
Again, you didn't add anything. I don't even think we *had* to know as
much as we do already. All I am saying is to quit claiming that you have
complied with the requests of those who asked that you "open up", and now
they should listen to you. If they didn't consider you open enough to listen
to before, I wouldn't be surprised if they still didn't.
> Yes, I admit that what I entered wasn't a lot. But just that bit was
> used to compare me to a rapist. How the hell am I supposed to react to
> that? Doesn't that comparison completely justify my reluctance to
> enter anything?
You can believe anything you want. If you are asking *me* (which I don't
think you are, but I'll answer anyway) - I think if you *really* told
something about yourself (unlike the basenote which was not at all personal)
it would not be used against you, and it would make others more comfortable
interacting with you, and therefore less defensive and more open to
discussion.
But, as you said, we don't *need* to know that, and if you don't want to
tells us about yourself, it isn't our place to demand it. I don't care if
you tell us bout yourself or not, just don't say that you have done so, and
therefore demand the "comfortableness and nondefensiveness" some promised,
when you haven't.
D!
|
| 1076.109 | Partners in crime | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Wed Apr 11 1990 10:42 | 62 |
| me>But until Truth has been verified, I
me>have as much right to defend my definition (and use my tests), and to argue
me>aginst someone else *using* that definition and those tests, as they do to
me>hold their opinion.
Doc>And how does Truth get verified? Are you referring to correlating the differing
Doc>individual stands with the societal yardstick or with the UEYUT? Other?
I meant Truth as in the Universal yardstick, and I meant "until Truth has been
verified" to indicate a time approximately around the time that the temperature
in Hades drops below 0 C. That is, until God(dess) tells us what Truth is,
I will argue (and perhaps amend) my definition.
me>and finds that it isn't. We disagree, and try to resolve it by convicing
me>the other of the validity of our definitions/tests whatever. What on earth
me>does the "audience" have to do with it? I cannot figure out how the
me>"majority" got into this discussion.
doc> Scenario: you say action X is sexist, he say it is not. You try to convince
doc>him without success, he counters with what you consider to be uncompelling
doc>arguments. Do you pull out the trump card "It is considered to be a sexist
doc>action by societal norms given the fact it is explicitly contrary to national
doc>legislative mandate..." ?
No.
doc>That's where the majority comes in, when two people
doc>disagree and bring the discussion to another level; "Well, 99% of the population
doc>agrees with me, so there."
I know that some people do that, but when I said that I have to judge for
myself whether something is sexist, and that it is valid to use whatever tests
I want, as long as I am willing to defend those tests' validity, you told me
that was judging by consensus. I say it's not, and a discussion using that
does *not* rest on the "99%..." stuff. I am still confused as to why you
thought what *I* said meant relying on consensus - my points are equally valid
if there are only two people in the universe, and they disagree.
> I do too. In fact, I frequently use it myself. But it is no guarantee that if
>everyone uses it, everyone will agree about what sexism is.
This is true. That it is why it is only *one* test. The usefulness of that
test is in direct correlation with the users ability to detect sexism when
directed at him/her. If we had access to that Universal Truth, then we could
find out for sure who is qualified to use that test. Until such time, I have
to be willing to defend not only the test, but my ability to use it.
I guess what it comes down to is that I believe that (for now) the Universal
Truth is unknowable - therefore the purpose in argument isn't to arrive at
the Truth, but to arrive at an agreement, where we both believe that same thing,
and both believe that thing is Truth. So it matters less whether we compare
it to the Universal Yardstick (or to societies yardstick) than that we can
*convince* our partner[1] that our tests, definitions, conclusions etc are
closer to the Truth than his or hers.
D!
[1] Notice the use of "partner". I think too many people, when getting involved
in discussion/arguments think of the other person as opponent. I consider
debate an enjoyable pastime, and therefore the person who partakes of it
with me is my partner in participating in a pleasant activity. Like a
"Sparring partner."
|
| 1076.110 | I agree | COGITO::SULLIVAN | Singing for our lives | Wed Apr 11 1990 11:43 | 18 |
|
re .109
>>I guess what it comes down to is that I believe that (for now) the
>>Universal Truth is unknowable - therefore the purpose in argument
>>isn't to arrive at the Truth, but to arrive at an agreement, where
>>we both believe that same thing, and both believe that thing is Truth.
>>So it matters less whether we compare it to the Universal Yardstick
>>(or to societies yardstick) than that we can *convince* our partner[1]
>>that our tests, definitions, conclusions etc are closer to the Truth
>>than his or hers.
D!, I like this explanation a lot, and I think it matches my own
experience. When I argue, it is to reach agreement more than it is
to reach Truth. I like your use of the word partner (instead of
opponent), too.
Justine
|
| 1076.111 | yea, pardner :-) | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy? | Wed Apr 11 1990 12:01 | 47 |
| doc>Do you pull out the trump card "It is considered to be a sexist
doc>action by societal norms given the fact it is explicitly contrary to national
doc>legislative mandate..." ?
D!>No.
Ok- this is key. This is an often used tactic; I wrote with that in mind. if
one does not use this tactic, then I wrote under an incorrect initial
condition.
>I know that some people do that, but when I said that I have to judge for
>myself whether something is sexist, and that it is valid to use whatever tests
>I want, as long as I am willing to defend those tests' validity, you told me
>that was judging by consensus.
I was unclear; that wasn't the message sent by the CPU, the output buffer has
been flakey lately, please bear with me. (It's too bad we can't have a CRC on
our notes, eh?)
What I meant to say was this: You determine what you believe sexism to be
using your paradigm. Another will make her/his own determination using her/his
own paradigm. And the two are unlikely to be identical. This makes all the
relatavists happy. :-) Sometimes your definitions of sexism will coincide,
sometimes they won't. It's when they don't coincide that the problem surfaces.
If you and I are just talking about theoretical situations or even actual
occurrences in which we are not involved, coming to an agreement is relatively
unimportant. However, if you and I are in a situation where I do something that
you consider to be sexist and I don't, then we have more at stake in coming to
some sort of understanding (if not outright agreement). If this situation
occurs in a work setting, even more is riding on the outcome. This is when a
form of absolutism begins to override our relative paradigms. This is where
the concept of a yardstick by consensus comes in. Because we will be in a
position where it may be necessary to bring our private disagreement into
the light of societal norms and the somewhat absolutist societal paradigm.
And what I meant to say was the gender reversal rule is necessary but not
sufficient for a group yardstick's definition, since any given group may have
a skewed membership. Thus, something that is arrived at by consensus is not
necessarily correct (in absolute terms). I hope this is clearer.
>That it is why it is only *one* test. The usefulness of that
>test is in direct correlation with the users ability to detect sexism when
>directed at him/her.
I sort of surmised that; I probably should have chosen a different method of
verifying that supposition. :-)
The Doctah
|
| 1076.113 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 13:50 | 13 |
| Re .108:
> . . . you didn't *add* any information.
Information was added; you cannot really deny that you have more now
than you did before. Your statements that preceded the above quote
indicated that you would not change your _conclusions_ based upon that
information, but that doesn't mean the information isn't there. And it
only means that _you_ would not change your conclusions based upon it,
not that somebody else wouldn't.
-- edp
|
| 1076.117 | comod response | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Apr 11 1990 16:04 | 12 |
| in re .112
Herb,
In re formal debate and sparring not being the style of this
conference.
You are indeed correct in your impression.
Thanks
Bonnie
|
| 1076.118 | Old and Tired Womannoter response | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Wed Apr 11 1990 16:08 | 10 |
| RE: .117
Actually, Herb, you would be correct if you were talking about this
conference several months ago.
That statement is no longer correct.
:-(
|
| 1076.119 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Apr 11 1990 16:29 | 9 |
| in re .118
hi Dawn, I think I'm not Herb :-) ;-)
the point I was trying to make is that it is not the *official* style
and that we as moderators work as actively as we can to discourage
that style of noting.
Bonnie
|
| 1076.120 | Er...oops | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Wed Apr 11 1990 16:39 | 11 |
| Hmmm.....I'll have to watch my note-number-versus-person-references!!!
I knew you weren't Herb. I didn't mean that. This is hard to explain!
And I *do* know that the mods try to maintain the non-combative noting
style here. Just seems lately that's the feel of the conference, in
spite of the mods (and many noters) best efforts.
*sigh*�
|
| 1076.121 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Apr 11 1990 17:38 | 7 |
| 'thas okay Dawn
I was pulling your chain a bit anyway
Bonnie
and thanks for your efforts also
|
| 1076.122 | Reality Always Wins | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 21:55 | 10 |
| Re .116:
> Eric, there is no such thing as an invalid viewpoint.
A person who thinks blanks in a gun are harmless and points a prop gun
loaded with blanks at their head and pulls the trigger and dies has an
invalid viewpoint.
-- edp
|
| 1076.123 | | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Wed Apr 11 1990 22:04 | 7 |
| re: .122, re: .116:
I rather prefer the Mark Twain version:
The man who sets out to pick up a cat by its tail learns something
that will always be useful and never grow dim or doubtful.
|
| 1076.125 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 11 1990 22:22 | 10 |
| Re .124:
If you do not understand how .122 applies to .116, then feel free to
ask me about it. Or feel free not to say anything. But do not
insinuate that I am being dishonest. Personally, I recommend the first
choice -- ask questions. There may be something new here for you to
learn.
-- edp
|
| 1076.126 | comod take on this | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Apr 11 1990 23:48 | 16 |
| Herb
I don't call that as a trash note..
further we prefer to have requests of that sort made in mail
making requests of the moderators in the file rather than in person
risks our missing same for some period of time at best and also
risks our ignoring a response as grandstanding at worst.
we generally get uncomfortable at being coerced.
thanks
Bonnie J
=wn= comod
|
| 1076.129 | and you can believe me or not | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Thu Apr 12 1990 19:59 | 24 |
| Eric, I can't find your note where you commented about my note making a
commparison to you with some of my husbands traits. I want to respond
to the feeling I read in your reply but I can't quote as I can't find
it.
For starters, Martin had it right in .95 about the difference in
communication styles. You and I are obviously worlds apart there. I
feel compelled to make one last try however.
It was NOT my intent to *attack* you. I was telling you that the way
you spoke(wrote) reminded me of my ex-husband and then described
the things he did that made me feel that way too.
The part about the rape topic was not to say that I thought you were a
rapist but to illustrate why a man just *saying* he is a nice honest
guy doesn't mean it's true. This was to explain why your just *saying*
your intentions are good does not mean it's enough for *this* woman to
believe you. That's why corroborating evidence in the form of more
personal notes, and the length of time I might know you, play as
important a part as anything you say in any given single occurence.
But all that aside, if I hurt you by what I said that was not my intent
and I apologise. I am not in the habit of *tricking* people into self
revelation and then using it against them. liesl
|
| 1076.130 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 12 1990 21:40 | 37 |
| Re .128:
> Indeed .116 specifically alludes to viewpoint as being religion.
As I interpreted it, "religion" in .116 meant axioms. I think the
author was saying that viewpoints are inarguable; there is no way to
prove they are true or false.
But my position is that that is not true. Some viewpoints are
inarguable. For example, if a person thinks broccoli tastes good,
there is no way to argue that they are incorrect. However, I think
that some viewpoints definitely ARE arguable. Not all viewpoints are
about taste. Some viewpoints are about the real world.
When a person holds an opinion about the taste of broccoli, there is no
reference by which to judge the opinion. But when a person holds an
opinion about something in the real world, the real world is a
reference. The real world itself is an argument as to the correctness
or incorrectness of the opinion.
If a viewpoint is about something that actually exists in the real
world and the viewpoint can be tested in some way, then the viewpoint
can be invalid. My example demonstrated exactly that.
Perhaps there is confusion in the meaning of "viewpoint". I think it
refers to opinions. E.g., a belief as to whether any particular
statement is true or false is an opinion; it is a viewpoint. That
includes all statements -- both statements that are testable in the
real world ("Apples do not fall.") and statements that are not testable
("Apples taste good."). Because I think some viewpoints are about the
real world, I think some can be demonstrated to be invalid, so I
disagreed with the author of .116 when they indicated viewpoints are
religious matters. Maybe you think "viewpoint" means only statements
that are not testable.
-- edp
|
| 1076.131 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 12 1990 21:48 | 21 |
| Re .116:
> Unfortunately, I really do mean "associated."
If you meant a correlation without a causal relationship, then it is
definitely inaccurate to call some concepts of justice "male concepts"
and others "female concepts". If there isn't a causal relationship,
then a person's beliefs aren't a result of their being male or female;
it is due to entirely random coincidence or to unrelated consequences
of something other than gender.
I came across the following example today:
"In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a
correlation between size of feet and quality of handwriting.
The boys with the larger feet were, on the average, older."
Wallis & Roberts, _The Nature of Statistics_
-- edp
|
| 1076.132 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 12 1990 21:55 | 75 |
| Re 5.398:
I searched the conference for the phrase you said was your hot button.
Specifically, I searched for "damn well" and checked each occurrence to
see if the phrase or something like it was there.
The phrase appears more times in your note than anywhere else in the
conference. I found only one note where the author was saying the
phrase themself, 1088.13 by Kathy Gallup. Otherwise, the phrase has
been referred to (e.g., described by the author as being said
hypothetically or by somebody else) only in your notes (such as
1088.19) and in notes 746.53, 996.276, and 1076.63.
Your "hot button" is a mirage.
For reference, the words "damn well" appears in that phrase and others
in notes 5.398, 15.438, 53.234, 99.8, 176.38, 218.176, 218.205, 285.41,
431.19, 439.16, 556.19, 568.2, 746.53, 847.113, 922.91, 996.276,
1076.63, 1076.64, 1088.13, 1088.19, and 1088.41.
In note 1076.99, you say I have never proven your notes are sexist.
Now you enter a flaming note about a hot button that you have not
proven exists. You hold yourself and me to different standards. Why?
If you make a sexist comment and I point it out, you flame about being
required to hold to certain standards. If I do not point it out, you
say I have not proven you are sexist.
Tell me, what is the right thing? When I observe that you have said or
done something sexist should I point it out and be flamed? Or should I
say nothing, even if you are being unfair to people? Tell me what
choice you recommend.
I also think you are misunderstanding something. When somebody says
"If you want . . . then you'd better . . .", there are at least three
meanings that phrase can have.
One is withholding/offering something:
"If you want this toaster, you had better give me ten dollars."
In that sense, a person saying you must do something before they grant
you equality is holding equality hostage unfairly. But that is not the
only meaning the phrase could have.
Another is expressing physical necessity:
"If you want to retrieve that coin, you will have to lift the chair."
In this sense, a person saying "If you want equality, then you'd better
. . ." could be telling you what physically must happen. They are not
denying you anything themselves or making demands; they are simply
informing you of the state of the world as they see it.
A third meaning is indicating logical consistency:
"If you do not wish to help fund Operation Rescue, you should
avoid doing business with companies that donate to it."
When this meaning is used, a person is not making a demand. They are
trying to show you that some particular act is right or wrong because
it follows logically from other things you believe. If you believe
equality is deserved for women because it is wrong to discriminate on
the basis of gender, then it is also logical that equality is deserved
for men because it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender.
Therefore, you should grant men equality because it is the RIGHT thing
to do, not because anybody is forcing you.
When you next see a phrase of that sort, ask yourself if it could be
meant in more than one of the above ways. If the author could have
meant one of the meanings other than the demand, why don't you ask them
about it instead of assuming they are making a demand?
-- edp
|
| 1076.134 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 12 1990 23:58 | 71 |
| RE: .132 edp
Eric, it's a shame that you went to such trouble to research the
entire file for TWO WORDS out of the hypothetical phrase I listed
(as being indicative of the "ATTITUDE" which was the subject of my
hot button note.)
If you notice, the title of the "Hot Button" topic indicates that
the buttons should be deleted when cooled. Although I realize that
most people don't bother to delete their hot buttons from that topic,
I deleted mine around 12 hours ago (not because I no longer consider
it a valid hot button, but rather because I cooled off about it for
the moment.) That's how the topic is *supposed* to work.
> Now you enter a flaming note about a hot button that you have not
> proven exists. You hold yourself and me to different standards. Why?
You aren't required to "prove" your hot buttons in the hot buttons
topic, either. There are no different standards for you than for me.
>If you make a sexist comment and I point it out, you flame about being
>required to hold to certain standards.
That isn't what you've been doing. You've been making comments about
"my sexism" (as if it's already been proven that it exists.)
> If I do not point it out, you say I have not proven you are sexist.
Accusing me of sexism in one of statements is NOT proof that sexism
is present. Something isn't true simply because you say it is!
> Tell me, what is the right thing?
If you haven't gotten the message by now, you never will.
> In this sense, a person saying "If you want equality, then you'd
> better. . ." could be telling you what physically must happen.
> They are not denying you anything themselves or making demands;
> they are simply informing you of the state of the world as they
> see it.
If there is a "physical answer" to the problem of equality for
women (over the course of hundreds/thousands of years,) refraining
from making a negative comment about another Digital notesfile isn't
it.
> If you believe equality is deserved for women because it is wrong
> to discriminate on the basis of gender, then it is also logical
> that equality is deserved for men because it is wrong to
> discriminate on the basis of gender.
Equality is deserved for women because there isn't a reason in the
world why half the human race should be denied it!
Discrimination on the basis of gender isn't always or necessarily
"bad" in and of itself. If men and women had equal opportunities
in all areas of employment and education, isolated examples of
sexual discrimination against women wouldn't raise an eyebrow!
> Therefore, you should grant men equality because it is the RIGHT
> thing to do, not because anybody is forcing you.
Therefore, I should believe that statements about "If you want
equality, then you damn well better..." are not ultimatims or
demands (with women's equality being held over our heads.)
Ok.
You needn't bother turning one hot button note into a research
project the next time you see one you don't like. This isn't the
purpose or the function of having a hot button topic.
|
| 1076.135 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Apr 13 1990 08:36 | 9 |
| Re .133:
If you do not understand how I interpreted "viewpoint", then fine, I do
not care what words you use to describe it. The point I am trying to
make is that some things which people _claim_ to be subjective concepts
are NOT subjective concepts.
-- edp
|
| 1076.137 | Fun with statistics | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Fri Apr 13 1990 11:08 | 39 |
| edP;
>If there isn't a causal relationship,
> then a person's beliefs aren't a result of their being male or female;
> it is due to entirely random coincidence or to unrelated consequences
> of something other than gender.
Just because a study (or speculation) can't *establish* a causal relationship
between two things does not mean it doesn't exist. Also, the lack of a
causal relationship does not mean that it is "random" or "unrelated". For
instance, (we discussed this example in a stats course I took) they have
found and inverse correlation between the number of book per student at
a school, and the number of teenage girls at that school who get pregnant.
Obviously (to me) there isn't a causal relationship there - lack of books
are not causing the girls to get pregnant, nor are the number of pregnancies
taking book away. But the correlation might be explained by the fact that
the size of libraries at schools has to do with the budget of the school.
Poorer neighborhoods will have fewer books in the libraries. And poorer
subcultures tend to have higher incidences of teenage pregnancies. So
although there is no causal relationship, the two are *not* "random" or
"unrelated".
Actually random isn't a consideration anyway. The whole point of experimental
statistics is to weigh the probability that the correlations are random.
A "statistically significant result" means, exactly, that there is a very low
probability that the results are random. (Rejection of the null hypothesis
and all that fun stuff.)
So, even if having particular views doesn't *cause* someone to be female,
or being female doesn't *cause* someone to have particular views, it is
certainly worthwhile to discuss a correlation between the two because they
might certainly be related. There are other meaningful relationships
between data than just causal.
If it were worthless to discuss data that can't establish as causal
relationship, then *all* survey type data would be meaningless, because
such data, statistically, correlational data cannot be used to establish
causality.
D!
|
| 1076.138 | | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wully | Fri Apr 13 1990 11:19 | 11 |
| And, in psych, the first thing to look for when you get strong
correlation is (a) common causality, as with Eric's example of
handwriting and feet size being correlated with age as the cause, and
(b) indirect causality as when sex membership causes different
socialisation which in turn causes differential test results later. In
the latter case, we can say with a great deal of truth that eg notions
of justice are caused by sex membership. The cause isn't proximate,
but it is effective.
=maggie
|
| 1076.139 | | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Fri Apr 13 1990 11:33 | 30 |
| I prefer the significant (inverse) correlation between height and
ability to get pregnant. (In fact, there are biological reasons
why women are -- on average -- smaller than men.) But, I digress.
There's one other interesting correlation that might be relevant
to this discussion. (Insert obligitory disclaimers "some not-equal all")
-- The "average man" who contributes here is an engineer.
-- The "average woman" who contributes here is a not-engineer (financial
analysist, manager, secretary).
-- Engineers are trained to be relentlessly logical. They are not
trained to write well.
-- Not-engineers are trained to be judgemental in a broader sense. They
would not be working at Dec if they didn't have satisfactory writing
skills.
What I am getting at is that the average engineer here is male, logical,
and a poor writer; while the average female is a non-engineer, judgemental,
and a better writer. As with most traits, within any of the above categories,
the variation within groups (engineers who are female, or good writers, or
both) far exceeds the variation between groups.
Could some of the conflict in Womannotes (logic vs judgement, poor expression
of ideas vs ability to write) could be explained by other attributes than
gender?
Martin.
|
| 1076.140 | | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wully | Fri Apr 13 1990 11:46 | 9 |
| � Could some of the conflict in Womannotes (logic vs judgement, poor
� expression of ideas vs ability to write) could be explained by other
� attributes than gender?
Do you mean proximate, effective, or what, Martin? Or do you just mean
are there alternative explanations that can be put forward without
sophistic motives?
=maggie
|
| 1076.141 | | TLE::D_CARROLL | Sisters are doin' it for themselves | Fri Apr 13 1990 12:01 | 35 |
| Martin:
-- The "average woman" who contributes here is a not-engineer (financial
analysist, manager, secretary).
You think so? Are you sure? (Like, is this just a "feeling" or did you go
through the introduction note.)
I was under the impression that the average woman here *was* an engineer. Or
if not an engineer, at least a technical type (field service, technical
support, etc.)
-- Not-engineers are trained to be judgemental in a broader sense. They
would not be working at Dec if they didn't have satisfactory writing
skills.
That isn't necessarily true. (Actually I am somewhat ignorant about not
engineering positions, so i could easily be wrong.) I wouldn't think a
field service tech, a sales-person, a dock-worker or a a technical support
person would be expected to have writing skills any more than an engineer.
Also, while actual engineers may not be required to have good writing skills,
most engineers eventually move into management (and I would guess we have
a lot of project leaders and technical managers here), and I would think
*managers* would have to have good writing skills.
>Could some of the conflict in Womannotes (logic vs judgement, poor expression
>of ideas vs ability to write) could be explained by other attributes than
>gender?
Perhaps, but not by your implied explanation. After all, if it is true that
most of the men are engineers and the women are non-engineers, that is because
women are more likely to be non-engineers - and that is due to societal
incluences relating to gender. So it is as Maggie said an indirect but still
real causal relationship.
D!
|
| 1076.142 | still trying to figure this out ... | GEMVAX::ADAMS | | Fri Apr 13 1990 12:09 | 50 |
| re: 60
Thanks for the added explanations. I gather from reading a few more notes
that others have a view of this quite different from your own. Still, I'd
use words like rudeness, frustration, discourtesy to describe the
situation--I think saying you were denied "human recognition" and "equal
rights" is, at best, an exaggeration.
As to my other question ... you are in error. You did not write that Ms.
Ciccolini claimed that these unwritten cultural rules were controlling her
(and quite rightly since she did not say that in her note, nor that she has
been prevented from speaking her mind). She made a general statement that
these rules existed; you agreed with it; then you said she was wrong for
saying it. There's a gap in your logic here I still do not understand.
I find it very difficult to separate your message from my impressions of
your "personality" but have made the effort and can honestly say I am
puzzled with both.
While I agree with [what I think is] the point of your note, that is, that
sexism exists in this conference, I can not agree with the process by which
you arrived at that conclusion. I find your reasoning on the whole quite
bewildering, with gaps in logic and poor and invalid assumptions. An
example of the first is above, for the second let's consider your
discussion of the double standard.
You make up your own definition [I prefer the standard dictionary
definition myself--"a set of principles permitting greater opportunity or
liberty to one than to another"--because it has no connotation of "moral
conduct" or "comparative value" as does the phrase "having standards"]
and then you state that a double standard does not exist here. Well, I
say one does. Using your definition, I assert that some men have one
standard for women and another for other men. That's as much backing as
you provided for your statement. Who's to say which is "right" and which
is "wrong" based on the information provided? I accept that it is your
"opinion" that there is no double standard, but I do not accept it as the
truth, which is what I feel you expect me to do.
This leads into my impressions of your "personality." I think you're an
aggressive writer and the concept of "personality" and strength of your
convictions comes across very strongly. I find your style, the "tone" of
your writing, confrontational, rigid, very "black and white." I get the
impression you feel those who disagree with you are wrong and their views
should not only not be tolerated, but also changed to match your own,
whatever it takes. I call that oppression.
nla
|
| 1076.143 | maybe someone can do stats from the intro strings | ULTRA::ZURKO | My life is in transition | Fri Apr 13 1990 12:23 | 3 |
| My reaction is the same as yours, D!. You mean most of the women here _aren't_
engineers?!?!? I know that engineering-centric of me...
Mez
|
| 1076.144 | | CSC32::M_VALENZA | Note in your sleep. | Fri Apr 13 1990 12:49 | 17 |
| Actually, I am interested to hear that the majority of *men* who
contribute here *are* engineers. If that is true, it is an interesting
statistic. A majority of this company's employees work in other parts
of the world than New England, which is where I presume most of its
engineers work (although there are engineering sites elsewhere), and I
think it is unlikely that most of the men who work for the company are
engineers; however, perhaps (for whatever reason) engineers are more
likely to participate in this notes conference than people in other
professions. Many employees in the field, for example, are often away
at customer sites and don't have the time or opportunity to participate
in notes, except perhaps from home, which explains why they tend to
participate in smaller numbers.
If non-engineers are under-represented here and in other employee
interest notes conferences, I think that is unfortunate.
-- Mike
|
| 1076.147 | | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Fri Apr 13 1990 13:33 | 13 |
| re: .140 (mostly)
I really don't know what the truth is behind my speculation. What I
suppose I was wondering is whether saying note X expresses the Male
viewpoint and note Y expresses the female viewpoint might be
overly simplistic.
Looking at the job categories in the introductory notes is not going
to answer this question.
Perhaps I'm just searching for a gender-free way to explain miscommunication.
Martin.
|
| 1076.148 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Apr 13 1990 13:41 | 34 |
| Re .137:
> Just because a study (or speculation) can't *establish* a causal
> relationship between two things does not mean it doesn't exist.
The subject wasn't a relationship that hadn't been shown to be causal;
it was a relationship which wasn't causal.
> Also, the lack of a causal relationship does not mean that it is
> "random" or "unrelated".
I did not say "unrelated"; I said "unrelated consequences of something
other than gender". To be more specific, I meant unrelated
_to_each_other_ consequences of something other than gender.
> The whole point of experimental statistics is to weigh the
> probability that the correlations are random.
Actually, what is determined is the probability that the observed
result would have been observed if a hypothetical statement is true.
That is significantly different from determine the probability that the
correlations are random; the difference makes statistics empirical
instead of deductive.
> If it were worthless to discuss data that can't establish as causal
> relationship, . . .
I did not say it was worthless to discuss; I said calling different
concepts of justice "male concepts" and "female concepts" was
inaccurate if there were not a causal relationship between the concepts
and gender.
-- edp
|
| 1076.149 | Simplistic answer | BOLT::MINOW | Gregor Samsa, please wake up | Fri Apr 13 1990 13:46 | 11 |
| re: .146:
I heard the claim that there are biological reasons why women are smaller than
men from an evolutionary biologist at last summer's Science Fiction
convention. The argument went very roughly as follows:
The purpose of DNA is to make more DNA. I.e., we're here to make kids.
During a biologically significant part of life, a 120 pound man is
equivalent to a 100 pound woman carrying (and feeding) a 20 pound infant.
Martin.
|
| 1076.152 | | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wully | Fri Apr 13 1990 18:23 | 5 |
| <--(.149)
Do insects, then, not transmit DNA ? ;')
=maggie
|
| 1076.153 | Poetry - Poetry | DELNI::P_LEEDBERG | Memory is the second | Tue Apr 17 1990 14:56 | 48 |
|
Back a few - Martin and non-gender related communication problems.
Over the past x years that I have been in this file I have seen
a number of people develop into very eloquent noters and some who
never caught on to writing style as an art.
I have been told that I am a good writer (I agree and disagree
with this) but mostly I have been told that if I could write as
well as I speak I would be a very effective communicator (I have
tried to get hand motions into notes but it don't work so good).
Some people communicate best with words, some with images, some
with motion (dance comes to mind), some with the spoken word.
All of these means of communication are valid and useful for all
of us to get familiar with. In notes it is very hard to use any
form other than the written word - in most cases images don't
compute. So we try to create images with the written word, try
to express the unexpressible through a media that is very structured
and rigid so that means that we have to REALLY stretch to get an
idea across to the other noters. Another constriction is the the
size of the page, so we get to cram a lot of "good stuff" into a
very small package - no one really wants to write or read "War
and Peace" over a 1200 baud line with lots of line noise.
I am begining to think that this medium (notes) is best for those
of us who are able to write poetry - the constraints are similar.
Clear, concise images (concrete), short, powerful images (5 senses)
and most important of all POETIC LICENSE. Now if a noter is not
closely conversatant in the style and structure of poetry they
are probably not going to make it in notes, especially this file.
In some of the more techincal files it is mostly POETIC LICENSE
that gets abused with a lot of clear powerful images.
So Martin was this a non-gender related explaination of some of
the communication problems in this file? and notes in general?
Of course, you all realize that the above is only my theory and
not provable or even supportable outside of iambic pentameters.
_peggy
(-)
|
The Goddess is the poet of the spheres
and the muse to us all.
|
| 1076.155 | It is one of those days.... | DELNI::POETIC::PEGGY | Justice and License | Tue Apr 17 1990 17:28 | 15 |
|
One other skill needed for being good at both notes and poetry is
the ability to understand REALLY obscure recursive references.
_peggy
(-)
|
As Medusa said of Pegasus, "Nice wings but nothing
to lose your head over."
|
| 1076.156 | Initial Reaction -- Reply 1 | RANGER::R_BROWN | We're from Brone III... | Thu Apr 19 1990 18:15 | 62 |
|
I have just read and reread 1076.0.
I will have to read it again, and study the replies.
Very carefully.
But my first reaction is an emotional one:
I am truley impressed!
EDP has said many things here that I have wanted to say in this Notesfile
for a long time, but have held back because I had no desire to waste energy
fighting unnecessary battles with people who have demonstrated to me (and
others) an intolerance for dissenting or even different opinions.
I observe that there are, at this time, 155 replies to this topic. I wish
I hadn't been busy the week it was started; it would have been interesting
to be here as this... uh... discussion unfolded.
Are you braver than I, EDP? Unknown. Since I determined what my policy
towards this Notesfile would be, I have systematically desensitized myself
to most of the more sexist things I've read in this file, and have simply
refused to become angry at anything I read here. I do not know what I would
have done if I had allowed Sandy to anger me as she has you.
I, too, fight sexism wherever I encounter it -- whether it be outside or
INSIDE myself. And I, too, have observed this Notesfile degenerate into a
platform for the expression of anger and sometimes a little hatred toward
men. But all I have learned about this Notesfile says that it is against
the rules to even mention female sexism towards men here. EDP, you have
broken that rule in a big way.
Having not yet read the 155 replies to 1076.0, I think that I can safely
predict that you are in for a lot of flack. I predict that certain parts of
your note will be misinterpreted or even forgotten. I suspect that at least
100 of these replies will be enumerations of reasons why you are "wrong" or
sexist against women.
I further predict that there will be a large number of people who agree
with you, but you will see few, if any, of their replies. I've done a lot
of research in the past year concerning WOMANNOTES, talking to many former
WOMANnoters and a great number of read- only noters. Based on that research,
I think I can safely say that you will not get much support from those who
agree with you, simply because few people will be willing to go through
what you are going to go through (or actually, what I will observe that you
WENT through when I read the 155 replies ;-)).
But me: I do not care, because no one in this file is capable of hurting me,
scaring me, or even really annoying me. Consequently, I will come out and say:
EDP, I comprehend what you are saying. I know what you are getting at. And
while I don't agree 100% with everything you said in 1076.0 (but then, I never
agree 100% with anyone! ;-)), I definitely agree with the essentials. Remember
when your words are misinterpreted, twisted around, and/or lost in the shouting
that you have the support of at least one person.
That having been said, my emotional reaction ends. I shall return after I
have studied the replies. It will be interesting to see how correct (or
incorrect) my predictions were.
-Robert Brown III
|
| 1076.157 | Yawn. Part 1. | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:19 | 21 |
| 1076.158 | The Master...... | CONURE::AMARTIN | Marvin Gaye, Rest in pease | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:41 | 1 |
|
|
| 1076.159 | Same to you, dear... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:43 | 1 |
|
|
| 1076.160 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | dreamer of dreams | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:43 | 9 |
| Roger
Would you be willing to share your research with the file, or
at least with the moderators?
Thanks
Bonnie J
=wn= comod
|
| 1076.161 | The Master has risen | CONURE::AMARTIN | Marvin Gaye, Rest in pease | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:45 | 6 |
| Case proven once again...
it only took you two minutes to snap back with snot. How typical.
What do you do? wait for that special person to come out to play?
My moms calling now so I have to go in.
|
| 1076.162 | My time on the system has nothing to do with you (honest!)... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 19 1990 20:58 | 10 |
|
It wasn't snapping back with snot, Al. I was merely offering
you a hanky for yours. ;^)
My response was so quick because I was sitting near the computer
in my living room and happened to do an "update Womannotes" while
waiting for something else to happen on my system.
Can you say "paranoia"? Geesh!
|
| 1076.163 | | CONURE::AMARTIN | Marvin Gaye, Rest in pease | Thu Apr 19 1990 21:16 | 11 |
| "Paranoia" isnt a part of my vocab suzanne.....
Now, YOU, on the other hand.......
Furthermore, might I state that We could go through all of your notes
that you have entered in this file, and Ill ges bet ya that "your
responses are quick because you were just sitting near the computer and
did an update womannotes" many other times also... care to check it
out?
Can I have my ball back now? time to go home....
|
| 1076.164 | We work for a COMPUTER COMPANY! Did you forget? ;^) | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Apr 19 1990 21:35 | 8 |
|
Anyone who would like to research my replies to find out how
quickly I respond to notes is more than welcome to the task!
If someone wants to try to build a case for there being a
sinister motive involved with spending a lot of time near a
computer, I'd love to see them try. ;^)
|
| 1076.166 | More Considered Reaction -- Part 2 | TOOTER::R_BROWN | We're from Brone III... | Fri Apr 20 1990 03:42 | 181 |
| 1076.167 | Yawn. Part 2. | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Fri Apr 20 1990 06:46 | 232 |
| 1076.168 | co-mod request | ULTRA::ZURKO | It's a question of temperature. | Fri Apr 20 1990 10:30 | 5 |
| Please refrain from insults. Please re-read 1.7.
Processing goes in the processing topic. Please re-read the basenote of the
processing topic.
Mez
|