Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I don't believe working for money had anything to do with it (any more
    than hair color or jewelry).  They felt she had been selected on the
    basis of her marriage, rather than her own achievements and skills, and
    was thus an inappropriate choice as their commencement speaker.  That
    does not to me imply disrespect for Ms. Bush as a person, or disdain for
    fathers or mothers who chose full-time parenting roles.
    
    		- Bruce

    Seems t'me that commencement speakers are typically picked for reasons
    of fame rather than worth, Bruce.

    re:-1
    maggie,
    
    Worth is a very subjective word.
    
    Kate

See Quotable Women 38.2 - oh, forget it - it's short enough to reprint here:

   
>    "I don't care who you are, I still think the best job you do in life is
>    to just raise your children."
>    
>    	-- Barbara Bush


To show how sheltered I am, I don't know of any college student body 
that chose their own commencement speaker.  Certainly the value of 
any speaker is subjective.  I can't for the life of me remember who
spoke at my graduation (do any of you?).  Had it been anyone of any
noteworthiness outside of my college's sphere of influence, I might 
have been able to say, "You know who spoke at my commencement?"

Gimme the diploma and a job.

As for BB, I like her but it ain't my show.

P.S.  What about the other 75% of the student?

    I like Barbara Bush too; but I question her judgment; afterall,
    she married *him* didn't she.
    

    
    
    
    
    
    I agree with Bruce, I thought the objection to her speaking was not
    that she was "just a mother" or something, but that clearly she was
    chosen just because of whose wife she is. To me that *would* be
    detracting from the supposedly feminist thinking (?) being symbolized 
    at the event.
    
    Dorian
    
    ps as for her not being paid for being a mother, well, perhaps if
    society were structured differently, she would have been... ;-)

    RE: 106.4
    
    Our commencement speaker was Thurgood Marshall.
    
    
    -- Jane 
       (U.Va. Class of '79)

Ours was A Bartlett Giammatti (sp?), president of the National League in 
baseball.  I remember liking his speech, but I don't remember what it was about.
Not that it mattered to most people anyway, they just wanted that piece of paper
that they spent ~$80,000 and four years in Hell trying to obtain.

Lisa
(MIT '88)

BTW, class of '87 had KO as their speaker.

  I agree that Barbara Bush is a classy woman, good wife and mother.  
But I think that the 25% that voted against her wanted something 
different.  I remember hearing Benazir Bhutto speak at Radcliff (?) a
couple of years ago.  After her speech I had the feeling that I could do
anything that I worked hard for.  I felt that I could become a leader
of my country or an Information Systems Specialist at a large
computer company. :-)

  I am not sure that Barbara Bush would have the same effect on me.

Lisa

    
    
    re -1
    
    If after four (or five depending on the school) years of college
    you still do not believe wholeheartedly that you can achieve whatever
    you set your mind to, listening to someone else tell you that you
    can is IMO not going to make you beleive in your ability to do so.
    
    A strong belief in oneself can only be achieved by said person.
    It can be reinforced through others, but not achieved.
    
    Michele

    
One of the points of the petition was that these students have been
being taught, over the last four years, to value their achievements, that
they can choose to do whatever they want, etc.  Having a graduation speaker who
is famous, not for her own achievements, but for being married to
someone else, is what they are protesting.

(Wellesley seniors do choose their own speaker, for the most part --
they nominate people, who are invited in order of most nominations.)

I think Ellen Goodman made a good point, saying that regardless of
who's right, it's a good debate for the women to be going through.

	MKV

    I heard Barbara's response to the student's complaint today on the
    radio.  Basically she said "Its understandable, they're looking at the
    world from 21 year old eyes."

    Barbara Bush is a smart lady, probably smarter than the fellow she
    married (don't mind me: Mr. Bush is way farther to the right
    politically than I can take even on a good day).  However, I can
    understand the students' point.  On the other hand, I don't think most
    people are going to recall much about the commencement speaker no
    matter who it is.  I don't remember who spoke at mine (16 years ago).
    I don't even recall if it was a good speech.

    I thought that one of the major points of the protest was that she
    dropped out of college to get married (or at least that is what my
    cousin who goes to Wellesley tells me). 

    Deb

    P.S. Mike "60 Minutes" Wallace was the speaker when I graduated
    (Bentley College, 1977). While I wasn't wild over Mr. Wallace, I
    voted for him over the other choice that was proposed to us, Mike
    Dukakis.

    Last week's Sunday Globe (April 22) had an article about this
    brewing tempest in the context of "f(F)eminism today."
    
    The thrust was that while one of the initial goals of f(F)eminism 
    was to allow every woman to choose whatever lifestyle she wanted, the
    Wellesley (f)Feminists who were against Barbara's speaking were
    saying, in effect, that only women who had careers made the "right"
    choice in life.
    
    BTW, my commencement speaker at Tufts, Class of '63, was then-VP
    Lyndon Baines Johnson.
    
    That sunny, hot Sunday in June, whoever could have imagined that
    five short months later John F. Kennedy would be gone?
    
      Alan 

    
    I realize she's a woman, but could we refrain from calling her by her
    first name? Like maybe, could we call her "Ms. Bush" or something
    closer in format to what we'd be calling her if she were a man?
    
    Dorian

    Re: .16
    
    Dorian, I don't think we're calling her by her first name because
    she's a woman.
    
    I think many of us in America seem to enjoy being on a first name
    basis with public figures, be they politicians or entertainers (hard
    to tell the differences sometimes), male or female.
    
    We still refer to our last President as Ronny (or Ronbo), his wife
    is Nancy, Phil Donahue is Phil, Arsenio Hall is Arsenio, Elizabeth
    Taylor is Liz, etc.
    
    And even if we were to refer to George Bush's wife by title, I don't
    think she'd prefer *Ms.* Bush. 
    
    Somehow I believe a woman who says, "I still think the best job you do 
    in life is to just raise your children" is definitely a "Mrs." type.
     
      Alan             

    Re: Deb in .14
    
    > I thought that one of the major points of the protest was that she
    > dropped out of college to get married (or at least that is what my
    > cousin who goes to Wellesley tells me). 
    
    Not true.  Barbara Bush graduated from Smith College (so did Nancy
    Raegan, for that matter - quite a contract).
    
    						Jan (Smith College, '69)
    
    PS  The speaker at my graduation was Tom Wicker (NY Times reporter),
    but I don't remember what he said - but it was a *long* time ago.

    The First Lady's work with literacy certainly warrants her being
    treated with decency by the academic community.  The students are
    wrong.
    
    IMHO,
    Marge

    Re Alan's -
    
    I beg to differ with you, but I've noticed that the tendency to call
    women by their first names in the media is *far* greater than that to
    call men by theirs. I'll admit that *sometimes* it's done to men as
    well, but I'm certain it's done much more freely to women. Particularly
    to sports figures and politicians. A few months ago I was watching both
    a men's and a women's tennis match, and that's exactly what happened...
    
    *Why* is this true? Probably, I think, because of the (perhaps
    half-conscious) tendency to assume an easy familiarity with a women as
    one would with children, and this just isn't most people's tendency when
    dealing with men.
    
    Trivial? Perhaps. But I don't think so. Not when the media are *so*
    powerful and women are trying to attain a measure of dignity as human
    beans these days. 
    
    But don't take my word for it...keep your ears open! Prove me wrong!
    
    Dorian
    
    ps a cigar is *never* just a cigar.   ;-)
                                             

Seems to me that the reason we refer to many women by first name is because
tradition already has it that men are called by their last names, and so if
two people share the same last name, the man gets it.  Sometimes titles
are used: Mr. Bush and Mrs. Bush.  But usually in casual conversation, and in
the media, titles are *not* used.  So we refer to the president as Bush.  So
how do we refer to his wife in a *similarly* casual way, and yet still
differentiate her from her husband.  We can't call her "Bush", right?  And yet
Mrs. Bush, doesn't sound right if we don't call him Mr. Bush ("Bush and
Mrs. Bush were at the reception...").  So we call her by the only single name
remaining - Barbara.

D!

    in re .4
    
    this is probably a serious aside by the time anyone reads it -
    but I do remember the speaker at my graduatio 1966 Mount Holyoke
    
    it was the architect Philip Johnston and he was a *super* speaker.
    
    bj

    Speaker at my graduation was Edwin Newman. His topic was illiteracy.
    Great speaker!
    
    Kate

    
    re .20
    
    �Not true.  Barbara Bush graduated from Smith College (so did Nancy
    �Raegan, for that matter - quite a contract).
    
    the article i read in the globe yesterday morning indicated that she 
    dropped out of smith after a year or two.
    
    ~robin

    re .23 -
    
    In the article in yesterday's Globe about this, she is referred to as
    "Bush" throughout. (I consider it a mark of my own internalized sexism
    that I didn't suggest this myself!) 
    
    Dorian                              
    

    Re: .27
    
    Dorian, in the past few years, I've noticed the Globe - and some other
    Boston media outlets, both print and broadcast - have followed that
    style.
    
    In the not-so-distant past, a woman - after first being identified by
    her full name in a story - would then be referred to as Mrs., Miss, Ms.
    XYZXYZ for the remainder of the story. It was considered rude to refer
    to a female by her last name only.
    
    Now, it seems, that the media refer to both males and females by their
    last names, once their first names have been introduced at the
    beginning of the story. 
    
    An exception I can think of is similar to what D! has said: if a
    husband and wife are injured in an accident, for example, the report
    will differentiate between the two, either by using a title or the
    first names.
    
    As an aside, when I was in High School, I had an English teacher who
    always called boys by their last names only. Girls, however, were al-
    ways addressed as Miss Smith or Miss Jones (or Miss Goldstein). :-)
    
      Alan
                                                

    Perhaps this should be in another note, but I felt pretty uncomfortable
    using her first name in my response.  It felt marked, somehow.  But
    using Ms. Bush or Mrs. Bush appeared even more marked.  Just "Bush"
    could have been very confusing, since it might not be clear who is
    being talked about.

    When I was in the military I *hated* being called by just my last
    name.  It sounded very offensive to me.
    
    Lorna
      

    additional consideration:  the last name itself.
    
    Calling a person "Bush" may sound weird - because it's also what one
    would call a shrubbery.
    
    Calling a woman "Bush" may also sound offensive, even if it is her
    name, because of the sexual double-entendre.
    
    -Jody
    

re .19 -
    
>    Somehow I believe a woman who says, "I still think the best job you do 
>    in life is to just raise your children" is definitely a "Mrs." type.
     

Alan, I think you said a mouthful there. I'd have said just the opposite. I 
can't speak for Barbara Bush, but I'd consider the view that the best job 
you do in life is to raise your children a very unpopular, almost radical
idea, at least in the eyes of society, which (as I've tried to suggest)
doesn't seem to value that job very highly. Seems to me it's the "personal 
vs. political" split again. As individuals we can value motherhood in the 
personal sphere, where the women are. But to attribute value to motherhood 
has no meaning in the political sphere, where the men (and the money) are. 

I do in fact agree with Bush's statement. That's why I'd like to see the
people who do the job receive appropriate compensation (and I'd also like
to see the option of having the people who do the job be the children's
actual parents rather than "child care professionals"). 

On the other hand, the "Mrs." type, as you suggest, is probably someone
who's a wife in the more traditional, old-fashioned way of being one. 

In other words, I think you're lumping together two things, and assuming 
that one's attitude toward the one will be reflected in one's attitude
toward the other: motherhood and wifehood.

Well this "whining, unshaven feminist" (thanks to Mike Barnicle for that 
one! ;-) ) says it ain't necessarily so!

Call me "Ms.",

Dorian

re. 20

>> Not true.  Barbara Bush graduated from Smith College (so did Nancy
>>    Raegan, for that matter - quite a contract).
   
Actually Mrs. Bush did *not* graduate, Mrs. Reagan did. 

-- Nisha (Smith College, '88)

p.s. We had our ex-college president speak (Jill Kerr Conway) mainly because 
     Bill Cosby was a complete jerk and dropped out at the last moment making 
     us scramble to get someone to talk.  Past people have included Gary 
     Treadeau (sp?), the creator of Seasame Street, John Kenneth Gailbraith and 
     this year Dr. Helen Caldicott.
 
     We were allowed to choose a list of who we would like to come and speak 
     but the trustees were given the final say.

    At my graduation commencement from Simmons College (1977), Shirley
    Chisholm spoke.  All I have are fond memories of graduation but I dont
    remember what she talked about.
    
    I was appalled by the Wellesley women's reaction.
    
    Judy 

    I am disturbed by the reference that Barbara Bush is 'only' the wife
    of George Bush.  Barbara probably has a LOT to do with the face that
    George is Mr. Pres.  I know that Ronald Regan said that is doubtul that
    he would even have gotten into politics if it hadn't been for Nancy.
    This *partnership* is recognized in many divorce situations by the 
    award of 1/2 of a Dr.'s or Lawyer's practice and future income of the 
    'professional' that the wife helped to create.
    
    Take myself for instance.  I graduated high school at the top of my
    class and got married during my freshman year in college.  Then
    dropped out of college because I had a wife and family to support.
    The marriage went bad, but because I am from the old school of
    "men don't desert thier children", and I knew I would loose my children
    if I ended the marriage, I thought that *somehow* I could make it work.
    By the end of the marriage I was in total gridlock.  Dealing with 'her'
    was taking *all* of my resources.  It wasn't hard for her to convice
    others that I was getting flaky--I was.  I spent nine years as a 
    gorilla fighter.
    
    Exit Julie, enter Doris.  Doris has been a *partner* in every sense.
    We met when I was about as low as you can get.  No job, no education,
    no future.  She has stood by me while I struggled through school,
    divorce and custody battles, a couple years of 'finding myself' and
    trying to figure out what happened to the first marriage, helping
    raise my kids, and career problems with Dec.  A total turn around from 
    the first marriage.  What was the difference?  I have made a few 
    changes, but not that many.  The main difference has been that Doris 
    has been a partner instead of a combattant.
    
    There are many things that I support about the woman's movement--
    like equal pay, equal opportunity, etc,  but the thing that I dislike
    mose about it is that the 'feminist' movement has in many ways had
    the opposite effect that it was intended to have.  It has made us
    competitors instead of partners.
    
    I agree that one of the hardest jobs I have is raising my kids.
    
    fred();

�    the opposite effect that it was intended to have.  It has made us
�    competitors instead of partners.
    
    Fred, I hear what you're saying but consider for a moment: if a woman
    had no other choice, was it a real partnership?
    
    						=maggie

    
    When we have a woman president, I promise not to call her husband
    "only" her husband.

    re 36
    >Fred, I hear what you're saying but consider for a moment: if a woman
    >had no other choice, was it a real partnership?
    
    I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.  Barbara had
    the choice of staying in college and marrying George.  Looks like,
    for *both* of them, she made the right decision.  I suppose it's
    all in how you look at it. I'm sure also that Doris does not feel
    that she 'has no choice'.
    
    Women today have much more *choice* about marriage and partnership.
    I do not consider past injustice justification for present reverse
    injustice.  The goal should be getting equal, not getting even.
    
    I've rarely seen a good woman turn around a *bad man*,  I have seen
    good men drug down by a bad woman.  (Before I get flamed on, I've
    also seen the opposite).  I've seen good women spend their lives 
    with the kind of men that the 'feminists' use to give us all a
    bad name.  I have two brothers that spent their lives breaking 
    their backs on the farm only to have their wives (neither of which 
    would have even considered doing *man's* work) take a &^%& on 
    something that many women I know would kill to get thier hands on.
    Looking for a good man--I know where two of them are at 8^),
    
    fred();

�                           -< behind every good... >-
    
    Yes, Fred, and women can achieve much more with active assistance from
    their partners too.  (E.g., Lili Tomlin.)  Somehow it just doesn't seem
    to happen as often. 
    
    For example, I never heard gossip in academia about any woman prof who
    stole all her ideas from a male grad student that she had marrried and
    whose only credit was "To my loving husband"-type dedications. 
    
    It's not unfair that Barbara Bush had a chance to work behind the
    scenes to help make her hubby a star.  What seems unfair is the
    disproportionate number of Mrs. Bushes and Reagans and Carters and
    Fords compared to Mr. Thatchers.  I have to assume that there's some
    reason for the difference.
    
    Ray

    <--(.38)
    
    Sorry for not being clearer, Fred.  You made the observation that the
    feminist movement seems to have changed women from partners into
    opponents...or perhaps you meant that men have been changed too, I'm
    not sure.  Anyway, that brought up for me the spector of the times in
    between the waves of feminist activity.  In those times, women had very
    few choices:  marry, or work at some very poorly-paid job.  Since the
    professions were closed to us, our employment opportunities were
    limited to factory labor, domestic servant, shop assistant, or clerk. 
    Poorly-paid jobs of low social status.  Is it any wonder that many
    women opted for marriage instead?  Was it a real partnership for those
    women or was it simply the best job they could get?
    
    						=maggie

    re .38
    
    >For example, I never heard gossip in academia about any woman prof who
    >stole all her ideas from a male grad student that she had marrried and
    >whose only credit was "To my loving husband"-type dedications. 
    
    >What seems unfair is the
    >disproportionate number of Mrs. Bushes and Reagans and Carters and
    >Fords compared to Mr. Thatchers.  I have to assume that there's some
    >reason for the difference.
    
    Is there a Mr. Thatcher?  I've seen many more women bask in the glow
    of their husband's success than men who have been 'allowed' to take
    part in their wives glory.  I can give you a list of women as long
    as your arm that the only thing they did was sleep with/marry some
    fanous/successful man. (ie Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn).  How many
    of Liz Taylor's or ZhaZha's  husbands/lovers can you name?
    
    The thing that I have *agains* marriage is that all too often it is
    nothing but legalized prostitution. (boy am I gonna get flamed for
    that one).
    
    I support getting equal.  I do not support getting even.
    
    fred();

    re .40.
    
    It wasn't that great in either direction.  I bet it was a real 'riot'
    for a man to break his back 12-16 hours a day for the privilege of
    going home to the screaming brats and the 250 lb gorilla because
    it was the 'right' thing to do.  Very often, the men were just as
    trapped as the women.
    
    fred();

    <--(.42)
    
    Fred, I thought I understood the point you were trying to make but the
    more I think about it the more puzzled I get.
    
    If you think that it was wasn't so swell for men either, why do you
    blame feminism for changing women from partners to opponents?  If
    you're arguing that men were trapped then and are even *worse* off now
    due to feminism, would you explain your reasoning?  I can't figure out
    how that could be.
    
    Thanks.

    
    
    I agree with the point of Ellen Goodman's that Dorian brought up --
    that no matter what the outcome, it's good for the women to be
    thinking and arguing about this.  
    
    There's something about Barbara Bush (or about the image she projects
    in public) that I really like, and maybe if she'd been chosen to speak 
    at my college grad., I would have been pleased if only on that personal 
    level.  But the debate about what it means to honor a woman whose life's 
    work has mainly been supporting a man who went onto great glory is an 
    important one.  Are there things that Barbara Bush has to teach and to say 
    to young women today?  Maybe there are.  I might not enroll in a course 
    that Barbara Bush was offering, but it does seem (I think Maggie made 
    this point) that commencement speakers are chosen for their fame more than 
    for their ability to impart wisdom, and I think that muddies things a bit.  
    Frankly, I'd rather see the women protesting Barbara Bush as a speaker
    be*cause* of her support for a man who's policies have been so bad
    for women.  I suspect that George Bush owes a lot of his success
    to his wife, and that makes me both respect her work AND not want to
    support her because of her and his politics.  
    
    Justine                                                          
    
    ps  I believe that neither Barbara Bush nor Nancy Reagan graduated
        from Smith, but they both went there for a while.  

    re .43.
    
    *If you think that it was wasn't so swell for men either, why do you
    *blame feminism for changing women from partners to opponents? 
    
    We need to become better partners, especially in marriage.
    Instead of making men/women *better* partners, it has had the opposite
    effect.  Many men view the 'feminist' movement as a one way street.
    
    * If you're arguing that men were trapped then and are even *worse* 
    * off now due to feminism, would you explain your reasoning?
    
    Because the expecataions on men have not been changed, just added to.
    It's like it's women who now want it both ways.  Men are getting
    very mixed messages these days.  
    
    fred();

    Re: .33
    
    > Actually Mrs. Bush did *not* graduate, Mrs. Reagan did. 
    
    May be my mistake, but they did list her in the class news in the
    alumnae magazine, which I don't think they do for people who do not
    graduate.  I believe they listed a class for her (don't recall what it
    is) and I don't believe they would list someone's name followed by a
    class year if they didn't graduate in that year - but again I may be
    wrong (maybe they make exceptions for first ladies? :-).
    
    						Jan

    (I'm not sure this is a rathole, whether Barbara [I use her first name
    because of a pro-choice Republican party poster Mez and I saw in DC in
    November] is an appropriate invitee depends on how her choices are
    defined)
    
    Fred, I still don't understand your position, it seems to shift.  *How*
    has the feminist movement "had the opposite effect"?  When were women
    *ever* full partners of men?  Obviously you think that it was that way
    "before", but you also claim that men had it rotten "before", so it's
    not clear how things have gotten worse for men.  Please explain in
    detail?

    re .47
    
    Class notes will include information about individuals who started
    with a class, but did not graduate.  My mom was included in Wellesley
    class info for the year she would have graduated had she continued
    - she got married instead.  Then when she went back and completed
    her degree (2 weeks before I got mine), they *moved* where information
    about her was included to the year group that she actually graduated.
    
    And 'matriculate' is not equal to 'graduate'.  Matriculating means
    only that you were accepted (and registered for at least one class)
    at a particular institution.
    
    Alison

    re .48
    
    It appears that you're trying to deal in absolutes and I am trying to
    deal in *some*.  Not all pre-feninist marriages were semi-slavery.
    Probably most men and women were happy or at least accepted the
    situation.  However, for every *trapped* woman, there was most
    likely and equally *trapped* man and for every *partnership*
    marriage, there were probably x number of *trap* marriages.
    
    However,  the expectations of men are still the same--to protect,
    povide, to take care of,  to *make sure* everythig is as it should be.
    Few men are given the choice of whether or not to stay home and
    let his wife support and take care of him.  A man who does not 
    support his family or fails to meet his 'child support' obligations
    is treated like a criminal (another rathole).
    
    Added to this is the 'feminest' demand for 'equality'.  There are
    at least as many women screaming that men won't fulfill their 
    traditional roles as there are women screaming for 'equality'.
    Equal rights also means equal responsibility.  A disproportionate
    amount of the responsibility is still left on the men of our society.
    
    fred();

    re an earlier question, Mrs Thatcher's husband is Denis.  Yes, that's
    what the English media and its audience call him, not "Mr Thatcher".
    
    Fred, I found one recent statement of yours a little startling;
    
    > However,  the expectations of men are still the same--to protect,
    > povide, to take care of,  to *make sure* everythig is as it should be.
    
    I don't think this is quite so cut-and-dried for men in my generation.
    While I'm not now and have never been married, I'm sure that I don't
    expect to be the be-all-and-end-all for any potential future spouse.
    I don't think I'd even be attracted to someone who wasn't independent
    (in many, many ways) and that my respect for her would be partially in
    recognition of this independence.  So *my* expectations for 'men' don't
    seem to be very similar to yours. 
    
    And, FWIW, I credit my attitudes substantially to feminism.
    
    DougO

    <--(.50)
    
    Fred, I can't see how your response answered -or even referred to- the
    questions I posed.  Do you not want to?  Are you not able to?
    
    						=maggie

    r.30 I also hated being called by my last name when I was in the
    USMC. Now my children call each other by their last names and I
    still find it sad that the kids don't appreciate their first names.
    Oh well.
    
    Do any of you remember what Barbra Bush did for the Salvation Army
    last Christmas...If not let me recount it. Most of the malls in
    the area were not allowing the Salvation Army bellringers in because
    (they said) the SA reminded the shoppers of the down side of society
    or some such garbage. Barbra got some camera crews together and
    made a big deal of donating money at a mall that allowed the SA
    in. That was pretty much the end of the mall's not letting the
    Salvation Army bell ringers in. What a great way to deflate critics.
    
    She was and is rich that's the rub. Though its hard to imagine how
    many Ivy League College students past and present should find that
    objectionable. I wonder if they would do the same to Jackie Kennedy?
    
    Fred Mudgett
    Univ. of Md. University College '83
    

    OK, I've waited to cool off.
    
    .41 -
    
�    I can give you a list of women as long
�    as your arm that the only thing they did was sleep with/marry some
�    fanous/successful man. (ie Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn). 
    
    First of all, I have a very long arm.  Secondly, since when are Donna
    Rice and Jessica Hahn repected role models?  I've heard them described
    as whores and blackmailers and hypocrites, myself (although
    "whistleblowers" also comes to mind). 
    
    You avoided the main point - the "responsibility" of being a successful
    man is not a straightforward nailing to a cross.  There are rewards. 
    Power, fame and wealth, for example.  Why is it that there are so many
    "good women" behind successful men and so few "good men" behind successful
    women? 
    
    Ray

Reminds of the song (fom whence comes my p_name) by Annie Lennox and
Aretha Franklin ("she don't remember the queen of soul...")

"There was time when they used to say
That behind every great man there had to be a great woman
These times are changed, and that's no longer true,
We're coming out of the kitchen,
Because there's something that we forgot to say to you...
Sisters are doin' it for themselves,
standing on their own two feet,
ringing their own bell..."

I was just listening to it as I was reading this, made me smile.

D!

    re .50 =maggie
    
    I seriously doubt at this point that I can answer all of *your*
    questions to *your* satisfaction.  However, I will make one last
    attempt.
    
    On problem with womannotrs and also mennotes is that too often
    we tend to take a much too symplistic view of things.  You can
    find examples on both sides of any arguments.  Not all *women*
    are good or bad as much as not all *men* are good or bad.  A
    statement such as *I don't like xxxx* or *don't like yyyy* tends
    to be taken as an afront to *all*.
    
    A couple of examples on both extremes:
    
    Women like Barbara Bush who have stood behid their husbands through
    thick and thin I respect.  I think they deserve every bit as much
    credit for their husbands being what they are and achieving what
    they have achieved.  The phrase *only the wife of* is an insult to
    them.
    
    Women Like Mrs. Huhg Hephner and Donald Trump's new bimbo I do not
    have much respect for.  
    
    fred();

    
    Thanks, Mark.  I was beginning to worry.
    
    Fred, here are my questions:
    
    1)  *How* has the feminist movement "had the opposite effect"?  
    
    2)  When were women *ever* full partners of men?
    
    These really aren't rhetorical questions, I'm posing them in all
    seriousness.
    
    						=maggie

    
    1)  *How* has the feminist movement "had the opposite effect"?  
    
    	The fenenist movement has made the male/female relationship
    	more combative and competitive.  I support equal rights.
    	I also support equal reasponsibility.  Marriage must be 
        two people working TOGETHER for the same goals, not two 
        people trying to see how much they can get out of the other.
        I blame feminism and the me-generation for placing men and
    	women in a combative/competitive mode.
    
        But like I've said before.  There alot of the goals of feminism
    	that I do support.  Equal pay for equal work, etc.  I do not
    	support the "now it's our turn" attitude that I get from
    	many of todays "feminists".  I support getting equal.  I do not
        support getting even, and getting even is what I (and more
        than a few others) view as the main thrust of *todays* "feminism".
    
    2)  When were women *ever* full partners of men?
    
    	It probably depends on how you look at it.  Being parters doesn't
    	necessarily mean shareing equally in *everything*.  A linebacker
    	and a quarterback both have the same goal but have different jobs
        to fulfill.  Half of the marriages in the U.S still do manage
    	to succeed.  I think the attitude that women are *never* partners
        is just as obsurd as the attitude that women are *always* partners.
    
    fred();

    <--(.60)
    
�    	The fenenist movement has made the male/female relationship
�    	more combative and competitive. 
    
    Fred, this is just a restatement of what you said before.  
    
    I'm trying to get you to say *how*.  For example, did the feminist
    movement poison the water?  What you're talking about is a *big
    change*, right?  So how did the feminist movement pull it off?
    
    
�    	It probably depends on how you look at it.  Being parters doesn't
�    	necessarily mean shareing equally in *everything*.
    
    I think you're right, it does depend.  When I think of the term
    "partner" I tend to think of equality, don't you?  Are you suggesting
    that at some time in the past women and men had equal opportunities?
    
    						=maggie

    
    >I'm trying to get you to say *how*.  For example, did the feminist
    >movement poison the water?  What you're talking about is a *big
    >change*, right?  So how did the feminist movement pull it off?
    
    I think that many men view *today's* "feminism" as a supremisist
    organization instead of an *equal rights* organization.  I see
    men starting to push back.  I've seen many marriages broken
    apart because of the *me first* attitudes.  The recent Roper
    (I think it was) servery showed that women's openion of men
    is getting worse.  However, analysis of that survey showed that
    it is not that men are getting worse, on the contrary mens 
    attitudes towards women have gotten better.  However, the
    analysis showed that the rateings were worse because women's
    expectations (both in and out of marriage) where higher.
    
    Men are getting fed up with the male-bashing hate orgy and women's
    open of men are getting worse instead of better even though men's
    attitude towards women have improved.  THERFORE, more conflict.
    
    >I think you're right, it does depend.  When I think of the term
    >"partner" I tend to think of equality, don't you?  
    
    Depends on how you define "equality".
    
    >Are you suggesting
    >that at some time in the past women and men had equal opportunities?
    
    Depends on wat you call "equal opportunity".  A lot has changed in
    the recent past.  In the not so recent past.  Women had more 
    "opportunity" to get slaughterd, raped, ate by some animal, and
    enslaved, after the men had fulfilled their "opportunity" to get 
    hacked to bits for trying the prevent the rape, enslavement, etc.
    Men and women were better *partners* working for the same goals,
    goals that were more family oriented, not me-them oriented.
    Goals like staying alive,  eating, keeping the children alive,
    trying to keep from being enslaved.  We take a lot for granted
    these days.
    
    fred();

What I think I'm seeing here is a difference of interpretation of the word
"partner".  I think Fred sees "partner" as meaning that either a)both people in
the couple work toward keeping the family business afloat (business being like
a store or farm) or b) both people in the couple work toward the success of
the job of one of the couple (like a woman helping her husband to succeed).

The problem is that in the latter case that it is nearly always the woman
who has to put her energy toward helping her husband, and she never gains
the prestige or the monetary rewards that he does (monetary rewards would
mean that she may or may not get pension, benefits, and/or salary if they
were to divorce, whereas he would still get these, minus whatever portion
he might have to pay in alimony).

There is even a problem in the former case (a family farm) in that I *still*
read that the *man* is the farmer instead of reading/hearing that the two of
them are farmers.  If Fred's definition of a partnership were truly accepted by
society, then the woman would get just as much recognition as the man. 

Fred, do I understand your views correctly?  If so, then maybe you ought to
be joining *with* us feminists to make sure that Doris and others like her
start getting their positions regarded more highly.  Many feminists and
feminist organizations are working toward that now, but this is not what
the media cares to show.  There have been many, many feminist leaders lately
who have spoken out in favour of the housewives.  Perhaps if we worked
together, we could accomplish this much quicker.

       Carol

    re carol.
    
    I know what I mean, but am finding it somewhat difficult to get 
    the *concept* across.  I view *partnership* in both *patners* doing
    their part in making the *family* succeed.  I don't think I am
    defining partnership in the same way as others here are.
    
    There are many things of the feminist movemnt that I do support.
    Things like equal pay, eual oppertunity, etc.  There are many
    things I do not support.  EEO quotas for example.  I believe
    that America is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantee.
    I cannot support what I see as "feminism" as defined by the *leaders* 
    of such "feminit" organizations as NOW etc.  I refuse to believe
    that I am somehow *bad* just because I am a man, or that a woman
    who chooses to be a housewife is any less successful than a
    woman who chooses a "career".  I believe in equal rights, but
    I also believe that with equal rights comes equal responsibility.
    I see a lot a screaming about equal rights from the "feminist"
    movement, but precious little about equal responsibility.
    
    fred();

    
>    I cannot support what I see as "feminism" as defined by the *leaders* 
>    of such "feminit" organizations as NOW etc.  I refuse to believe
>    that I am somehow *bad* just because I am a man, or that a woman
>    who chooses to be a housewife is any less successful than a
>    woman who chooses a "career".  I believe in equal rights, but
>    I also believe that with equal rights comes equal responsibility.
>    I see a lot a screaming about equal rights from the "feminist"
>    movement, but precious little about equal responsibility.
 	
    	as a member of NOW i would be interested in documentary evidence
    	that any part of its leadership holds these views
       
    fred();

    fred,
    
    your vision of what feminism means and mine is so far apart
    that I don't even recognize it as what I mean when I talk about
    feminism..
    
    to me it is a question of equal opportunities for both sexes..
    
    which were not present btw in the late 60s when I graduated
    from college or I'd be a vet now.
    
    Bonnie

    	Actually, Fred was reciting some of the more common anti-feminist
    	slogans (collected together in the same notes so that we wouldn't
    	miss any of them, I guess.)  
    
    	Interestingly enough, some of the stereotypes in these slogans
    	contradict each other (which makes it all the more amusing to see
    	them presented together.)
    
    	One stereotype is that feminists don't have any regard for women
    	who work as fulltime homemakers (even though women's rights groups
    	spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to guard
    	the interests of traditional women.)  
    
    	Some of the very people who accuse feminists of not respecting
    	housewives enough are also the ones who make negative comments
    	about fulltime homemakers themselves (such as characterizing
    	marriage as legal prostitution, or implying that housewives are
    	lazy with comments about which sex "sits" at home watching day-
    	time television talk shows.)
    
    	When feminists attempt to protect the interests of traditional
    	women, anti-feminists scream long and hard that feminists want
    	rights without responsibilities (as if there is something
    	hypocritical about working to protect the interests of traditional
    	women, even though they DAMN us for not doing this very thing!)
    
    	Actually, this second stereotype is the other half of a Catch-22
    	when it comes to feminism:  People scream that feminists are
    	being hypocritical for not showing proper respect for housewives,
    	then when we argue for housewives' interests, the same people
    	scream at us that we're hypocritical for wanting to have rights 
    	*and* support for homemakers at the same time.
    
    	This way, they get to scream at us no matter what we do (which
    	is the whole point, I guess.)

    Mike
    
    I support affirmitive action...I don't know if NOW does.
    I also support women being allowed to serve to the best
    of their abilities in the military. Using the standard
    of 'different physical abilities' is a red herring...most
    of the work in the military relies on mental not physical
    abilities in this day and age. Why not have categories
    in the military..everyone has to be as physically fit as
    is possible for their own body and those that meet higher
    standards are elliglibe for combat?
    
    and (this should be a separate note really) why except for
    combat soldiers - about 10% of the military today, should
    soldiers have to be selected for strength? seems to me given
    the high technology of the military world that brains should
    be the criterion..
    
    and how is it self evident that NOW is anything in particular
    given your choice of examples?
    
    it seems that they are rather widely divergent.
    
    Bonnie

    	Mention of the physical requirements for the military brings to mind
    	another Catch-22 for feminists:
    
    	Some people love to scream at feminists for not DEMANDING that large 
    	numbers of women be drafted into combat along with men (the favorite
    	slogan of this one is - "you only want equality when it suits you.")
    
    	The only realistic way to draft large numbers of women, of course,
    	is to set the requirements to match the average healthy female body 
    	(just as large numbers of men are drafted by setting the requirements 
    	to fit the average healthy male body.)  
    
    	However, whenever feminists suggest changing the military's physical
    	requirements (so that large numbers of women can be sent into combat,)
    	some people start screaming at feminists for wanting "special privs"
    	(as in, "How DARE feminists suggest that the rules be bent to give
    	women the undeserved privilege of being drafted in large numbers???")
    
    	Once again, the same people scream at us for not demanding that women
    	be forced to serve in combat (then scream at us *again* for suggesting
    	the only thing that would make it possible for this to happen!)
    
    	This is another situation where some of these folks can scream at us
    	no matter what we do, which (again) seems to be the whole point.

    Please take discussions of NOW and its beliefs to topic 113.  I suspect
    it does deserve a topic of its own....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    I agree completely with Suzanne about the Catch-22's of feminism,
    and I agree with Bonnie in .66 when she says that Fred Haddock's
    view of feminism is completely different from hers.  It's certainly
    completely different from mine, too.  I don't see or hear any feminists
    saying that they want equality or priviledge without responsibility.
     Exactly what is it that we supposedly do not want to be responsible
    for?
    
    As far as Affirmative Action goes, in my opinion, without Affirmative
    Action there would never be *equal opportunity* for women.
    
    I also greatly resent the term "legalized prostitution" when
    referencing housewives, or *any* woman, for that matter.  First
    of all, most wives supply a lot more for their husbands than sex.
     Most wives are expected to supply friendship, companionship, hostess
    capabilities, as well as housecleaning, laundry, and having and
    raising kids.  Prostitutes only have to have sex, take their money
    and go home.  Wives are expected to stick around all the time for
    weekends, holidays, vacations, sicknesses, everything!  (Being married
    is like the military in some ways - you don't get to go home at
    night or on the weekend!  You're there all the time!)  Besides,
    most women still want romantic love from a man more than anything
    else on this earth, and most women get married because they're in
    love with the guy.
    
    Even without the pure motives of the above I don't think the term
    "legalized prostitution" should be used in a derogatory way.  As
    far as I'm concerned if a rich man wants to buy himnself a young,
    beautiful wife or mistress, and she thinks of it as an interesting
    job and he's happy with what he's getting for his money, it's nobody
    else's business.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, back to the original topic.  I can see one this from both sides.
    
    UNDERSTANDING WHY THE FUROR:
    I believe that a commencement speaker at a woman's college should be
    someone who has achieved fame and recognition primarily from her own
    efforts.  A role model -- someone who makes you think "if she can do
    it, I can, too!"  Barbara Bush was asked to speak BECAUSE she is
    married to a famous man, not because she is a wife and mother.  To me,
    that enforces the idea that women are supposed to be pedastals for men
    to achieve success.  Objecting to this message is not the same as
    objecting to her. 
    
    UNDERSTANDING THE ANGER AT THE FUROR
    Barbara Bush is a wonderful woman who has done a lot of good.  She is
    extremely open and down-to-earth and frankly I would rather hear her
    speak than her husband.  She should be given credit for the person she
    is.  (Although I seriously question the person she has chosen to
    support all her life...)
    
    For what it's worth -- my commencement speaker was horrible.  He was a
    narrow, dry, academic linguistics professor who had very little to say
    to me as a 22-year old woman about to enter the working world.  (He had
    zero sense of humor; probably his greatest flaw!)  I don't remember his
    name, and 20 minutes after he spoke I couldn't remember anything he had
    said.  
    
    Pam 

re: .74
I agree with Pam -- well-stated.

	MKV

    fwiw, our speaker was lee iacocca (sp?).  even my brother came (he
    didn't go to his own commencement)...
    
    mit 85

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    							=maggie
    ====================================================================

    I think what rankles about Barbara Bush speaking to a group of
    graduating  seniors is that they have worked very hard to graduate
    (heck, I know - I  went there).
                                                      
    Barbara Bush didn't graduate - she didn't have to.  She left to marry a 
    wealthy man.  (In that utopian world of pre-50% divorce failure rates) 
    there was no reason to think that she would ever have to use her
    education other than to keep up her side of a scintillating
    conversation at a cocktail party.  Her lack of degree would never be a
    handicap in her chosen  field of housewife/mother.

    Unfortunately, in this world, that simply isn't realistic.  These
    seniors  got a degree in order to use it - even those who really wanted
    to earn an  "MRS" degree had to understand that this was not a sure
    shot and that they  needed a contingency plan.  I'm not sure that, at a
    ceremony recognizing four years of hard work, I would want to sit and
    listen to someone who  became famous because she dropped out (do you
    think that George would have  waited...).

    If her attraction is her success at raising a family, supporting an
    ambitious  husband, and contributing to literacy programs, then
    Wellesley could have  saved a lot of money, and asked my mother to
    speak.  Not only did she raise  many children, marry a poor man who
    became successful, and tutor many  recent immigrants and natives in
    reading skills, she graduated.  From  Wellesley.  

    
    Yesterday in the Globe there was a little article about Bush's
    admiration for nurses. She said she might well have become a nurse 
    herself, if she hadn't got married instead.

    If anyone is interested, there are two discussions in pear::soapbox
    on Barbara Bush, Wellseley college. If anyone would like to present
    a different point of view than the rather negative one about
    women's colleges that are currently being entered try notes
    759  and 771.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Are you saying that none may disagree *here*..?

    nope, just that there is a different discussion going on there
    with a different slant to it..
    
    that was for information purposes only
    
    bj

    re .77, I agree with what you have to say, and think that I would
    feel the same.  My daughter will be going to college in two years
    and I have spent a lot of time convincing her that she needs to
    have a career of her own to insure her independence.  Barbara Bush
    is not someone I want as a role model for my daughter.  It's not
    that I don't think Ms. Bush is a good person (although I don't share
    her taste in men), it's just that for most women marrying a millionaire
    is not an option.  I don't think this opinion says anything negative
    about the value of motherhood either.
    
    Lorna
    

    every year in colorado springs, there is a womens life festival. It is
    presented by this church supported hospital.  anyway, last year they
    had scheduled Marlo Thomas as guest speaker.  at the last minute, she
    had to cancel due to a back injury.  in her place they hired Phylis
    George.  she got up on stage and talked about all the "risks" she took
    in her life career wise. How she quit one job to start another.  how
    supportive her husband was through all her "risk" taking.  (she is
    married to a millionare).  After listening for awhile, about 500 of us
    got up and walked out. 
    I think if any function hired a "famous" woman, and the woman speaks to
    a group of women who are struggleing to succeed, to eat, to pay the
    rent, to get an education, to support themselves and family, and *she* 
    is supported financally by a rich husband, her effectiveness as an 
    inspiring speaker is lost when she speaks of risks. 
    Personnaly, I don't believe there is a risk in changing careers if
    there is a millionaire husband and complete financial security, and 
    no matter what choices I make, I have him and his income to fall back 
    on. IMO, the real risk takers are some of the women of this file who 
    have risked everything to get an education, who stay employeed by this 
    male dominated industry and excell.  I'd prefer listening to someone like 
    them before Barbara Bush or Goddess forbid, Phylis George again. 
    
    vivian

    wasn't Phyllis (Day) George also once a Miss America competition
    participant (even winner)?  That's also a mixed message to give
    independent, hardworking women....to have a millionaire-married
    former-beauty-queen speaking to them of her travails.  This is saying
    NOTHING about Phyllis George - she has chosen her path and if it's cool
    with her it's cool with me - but to choose her to speak to women who
    are generally setting out on a different path is a considerable
    mismatch.
    
    -Jody
    

    I think that Barbara Bush is a good person who is concerned with
    worthwhile causes, 
    However I understand the 25% who petitioned against her at Wellesley.
    I don't remember the name of the speaker at my graduation ('86)
    but his basic message was  that he is worried about the fact
    that uneducated women have higher birth rates than educated women.
    His message: 
    
    Please do not leave the bearing and rearing of our
    children to the uneducated.
    
    I was very disappointed with this message, I expected something
    inspiring not a lecture on why I should have babies.
    After this experience I can understand why these women might
    want someone more inspirational than Barbara Bush .

    Should Barbara be banned becaues of the 25% who do not *approve* of
    her for one reason or another.  What about the other 75%?  Should
    the will if the minority be forced on the majority??
    
    fred();

    Should any organization do something which disaffects one quarter
    of its most important population?
    
    						Ann B.

re: .86

>    Should Barbara be banned becaues of the 25% who do not *approve* of
>    her for one reason or another.  What about the other 75%?  Should
>    the will if the minority be forced on the majority??

Fred, the petitioners did not ask that the invitation be rescinded --
the petition was just a protest.

	MKV

    It seems to me that Barbara Bush took one of the options available to
    her at the time.  She wasn't aware that choosing to be George's wife
    was going to be politically incorrect in 1990.   
    
    Dondi

<    It seems to me that Barbara Bush took one of the options available to
<    her at the time.  

I don't think that anyone is faulting her on her choices, rather they are
faulting the choice of her as speaker.

         Carol

< Interesting how she can be judged as a speaker before she has uttered her 
<first word...

I never said "as a speaker".  I said "as speaker".  She may be a very good
speaker, and still not be a good choice as Speaker for this occasion.

           Carol

re .92, .93, .94...  Scarcely "belaboring a semantic difference".  .92
suggests it is ironic that someone should be "judged as a speaker before
she has uttered a word".  .93 is simply emphasizing that the criticism has 
nothing to do with her "as a speaker" -- that is, with what she would say, 
or how she would say it -- but rather with whether she was an appropriate
choice to be "The Speaker" -- a symbolic role, for which qualifications other
than speaking ability are surely central.

	-Neil

	Just a note on numbers - Barbara Bush was the second choice of
	the Wellesley seniors.  The first choice, Alice Walker, turned
	down the offer to speak.  

    I heard on the radio this morning that Barbara will indeed speak
    at Wellsley.  She will be accompanied by Raisa Gorbachev, who will
    be in town for the Summit, and who will also speak.
    fred();

The Barbara Thing
   by Katha Pollitt

Poor Susana C�rdenas.  She is the Wellesley College senior
who spearheaded a petition questioning her class's choice
of First Lady Barbara Bush as commencement speaker. (Actually,
Mrs. Bush came in second to Alice Wlaker, who accepted and
then backed out.) C�rdenas and 150 of her classmates, one 
quarter of the senior class, are now getting it from all 
sides because they say they are "outraged" that Wellesley
is honoring "a woman who has gained recognition through
the achievements of her husband, which contradicts what we have
been taught over the last four years at Wellesley." Catcalls
from conservative and macho types were to be expected ("unshaven 
feminists," sneered Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnicle),
but why haven't more feminists risen to the students' defense?
For years, after all, graying veterans of the women's movement
have been bemoaning the dearth of new recruits.  Now, all of a
sudden, here are the fresh-faced young, and what do they get?  
A lecture.

"I have nothing but respect for Barbara Bush," Representative
Pat Schroeder, herself a runner-up on the Wellesley list, told 
USA Today.  "Being a wife and a mother is not a protestable offense.
After all, if it weren't for mothers, there would be no students
at Wellesley."  Suzanne Gordon, writing in The Boston Globe,
accused the students of denigrating caring and nurturing in
favor of "male-clone careerism."  Even the usually tart and
sensible Ellen Goodman was moved to smooth ruffled feathers 
by suggesting that the dissidents were just being anxious
out loud about their prospects for egalitarian marriages.

Like all debates conducted in the news media, this one has
been framed in a way that hopelessly clouds the issue.
It isn't about Mrs Bush's warmth or cahrm.  Those are 
considerable, especially when you compare her with her
fashion-victim predecessor, or for that matter, with her 
husband.  Nor is it about the owrth of raising children versus
paid employment, a false opposition it is surprising
to see feminists accept.  Most of the "carrer women" on
the Wellesley short list, as no one so far has noticed,
are also mothers:  Alice Walker, Sally Ride, Toni Morrison,
Glenn Close, Pat Schroeder, Sandra Day O'Connor.  It is these
women, not Mrs. Bush, who exemplify the "multiplicity of
roles" extolled by Wellesley president Nannerl Keohane
in her defense of the First Lady.

What the issue really comes down to is wifehood versus
personhoood:  derived status versus individual (paid
or unpaid) achievemen,  Mrs. versus Ms.  And teh Wellesley
dissidents are on the money here.  Mrs. Bush is not
being honored because she's a mom, or a charity
volunteer, or a comfy grandmotherly sort but because
she's the President's wife.  Honoring her for this
circumstance does indeed send young women a strange message:
Maybe, it says, despite everything we've told you about
defining yourself on your own terms, you ought to let a man
do it for you and bask in reflected glory when his ship
comes in.

Pro-Barbara feminists observe that women's domestic
contributions are always undervalued.  But ome reason for
this is that in "traditional" (i.e. nonegalitarian)
marriages like the Bushes', those tasks are performed in
a context of economic dependence and deference to male
authority...the absence, in other words, of the very
"choice" that Barbara fans are so keen on.  Barbara Bush
is praised, for instance, for the cheerful dexterity
with which she managed her family's twnety-nine moves in
forty-five years as George chased his rainbow through the CIA,
the UN, and the halls of Congress.  But why was her compliance a
virtue?  Perhaps she should have insisted that George
stop uprooting his kids and find a career more compatible
with responsible fatherhood.  Perhaps she should have pointed 
out that fathers who spend their days shoring up military
dictatorships set their children a poor example.  Rather
than patting their gender on the back for being "nurturing
and carin," feminists ought to be asking hard questions about
the morality of nurturing and caring for men who are anything
but.  The end result of Mrs. Bush's wonderful wifehood, after
all, is that she helped elect to the presidency a man who
addresses anti-choice rallies, starves the educational budget 
and plans to veto the Medical Leave Act.

Despite persistent rumors about her own pro-choice and
liberal sympathies, Mrs. Bush is silent, and proud of her
silence:  A good wife does not contradict her husband in
public, especially if he has a "wimp factor" to worry about.
Do we really want young women to model themselves on a
woman who, to promote her husband's career, gave up her
right to exercise her independent moral judgment?

If sentimental peities about nurturance and domesticity
are all feminists can offer the young, they might as well
take out subscriptions to Good Housekeeping and call it a
day.  Susana C�rdenas (who, byu the way, dearly loves her
mother) already has a job lined up at the Washington 
Office on Latin America, a human rights group...so much
for "male-clone careerism."  Maybe when she's finished with 
that, she'd like to try running the women's movement.
It looks to me like we could use her.



from The Nation, May 28, 1990.

    I think I've missed something here.  Is Barbara Bush going to speak
    now or isn't she?
    
    Barb

    Yes, she's still going to speak.  With Raisa Gorbachev.
    
    							Ann B.

    Today's (Thursday, May 31) Boston Globe has on the top of the front
    page in nice big type:
    
    "Presidents' wives in limelight at Wellesley tomorrow"
    
    There are two nice pictures, one of Barbara Bush, one of Raisa
    Gorbachev.  I suppose that this is what women do while their husbands
    discuss the fate of nations.
    
    In the accompanying articles both women are described as wives. 
    Although it does come out that Raisa is an alumna of Moscow State
    University (apparently with a PhD).
    
    Also, the portion of the article about Raisa says that the women
    graduates of MSU hoot at the idea that Raisa could say something
    valuable to a commencement. 
    
    My sympathies are still with the women of Wellesly who object to
    Barabra Bush.  I think BB is most likey a great person and a good mother
    but she was chosen because of her spouse, not herself.
    
    I went to the Wellesly graduation two years ago when Gloria Steinem
    spoke.  She was great!  

>    I went to the Wellesly graduation two years ago when Gloria Steinem
>    spoke.  She was great!  

    	Aha!  That's who it was that spoke at my graduation (Tufts '87)
    - I've been trying to remember since this topic started.  I
    remember being somewhat disappointed by the speech, but I admit I
    don't remember what she spoke about.  I guess she had a better
    speech a year later.

    	Barbara Bush also spoke at U Penn's graduation a couple
    weekends ago.  A friend of mine was there (her brother was
    graduating) and said that Mrs. Bush really wasn't a very good
    speaker.  The most memorable thing she said had to do with the
    possibility of a future president among the graduates, and that
    she wished *her* the best of luck.

    	amy

>    My sympathies are still with the women of Wellesly who object to
>    Barabra Bush.  I think BB is most likey a great person and a good mother
>    but she was chosen because of her spouse, not herself.

So why was Raisa chosen?  Was she even on the original list to choose from?
If not, what qualified her to be put on it (and then selected out of those
already on the list)?  Aren't there many other women who have earned Phd and 
and noteworthy accomplishments and were NOT invited?  What was the deciding
factor in the choice of Raisa?

-Joe

    RE: .106
    
    Joe,
    
    Raisa was NOT chosen.  She is in the USA because her husband and George
    Bush are having a summit meeting.  
    
    I am not sure why Raisa is joining Barbara. I am reasonably sure that
    Wellesly, given the option of including Raisa, opted for the publicity.
    (I base that assumption on having worked in a college PR office and
    dealing with commencement issues and publicity.)
    
    It's quite possible that since the Gorbachevs are being hosted by the
    Bushs, it seemed reasonable to invite Raisa to accompany Barabra.
    The original list from which the Wellesly commencement speaker was 
    chosen is posted earlier in this string. Raisa was not on it.
    
    The combination of First Ladies is a coup for Wellesley publicity and
    visibility. As role models, they are not suitable commencement
    speakers.
    
       Margaret

    Heard on the radio this morning,
    
    "That's a lovely cap and gown you're wearing today, Mrs. Cleaver."

    I was able to watch the addresses on Friday.  Raisa G. was invited by
    *Barbara B.*.  Ellen Goodman summarized it well in yesterday's "Globe".
    Barbara Bush is a very good speaker, and she neatly side-stepped many
    of the issues, focusing on the need for a strong family unit, rather
    than intervention from "her house".  This is well and good for middle
    and upper class families, but doesn't do a whole lot for those families
    who *need* the support which social services support.  Raisa G.'s
    speech could very well have been delivered by her husband.
    
    There were some interesting comments made about the role of Russian
    women, and how many of them dislike Raisa G.  Russian women are
    responsible for their family, as well as holding down a job.  One
    person interviewed commented that the Russian women do not have the
    choice of working or staying at home with their children.  Add to that
    the difficulties of shopping for basic items - standing in one line for
    2+ hours, maybe finding what you need and then going on to the next
    store to repeat the process.  They appear to resent Raisa G. for her
    Western appearance and the fact that she does not *have* to work.
    
    Several people interviewed were professors who had spent 1+ year(s) in
    the Soviet Union.
    
    An interesting dialogue has begun, and it will be even more interesting
    to see where it leads.  Very "pretty" speeches, but IMO, they missed
    the mark.
    
    Judi
    

This is the text of a letter to the editor in the Wellesly Alumnae
magazine, Spring 1990 issue.  I thought folks would be interested in
hearing directly from one of the authors of the petition.

    MKV

----------------------------------
"As a Wellesley College senior and co-author of the petition that started
this whole Barbara Bush controversy, I'd like to set the record straight.
The media have succeeded in "making a story" by misrepresenting and mis-
construing our original position and as a result they have vastly misled
the general public.  Unfortunately this kind of media attention has
offended many Wellesley alumnae, and I'd personally like to apologize for
this.  I hope this letter will help to clarify the issues.  I would like to
assure you that we at Wellesley support and cherish all women whose lives 
reveal self empowerment as well as service to others.

"Not once have we condemned the First Lady for her role as a mother and a
volunteer.  We are not, as the media would have you believe, "careerists"
who look down their noses at any woman who does not hold a paying job.
Nor are we women willing to swallow whole the male myth that success only
lives in the kind of careers and lives that call for us to be aggressive, 
independent and competitive.

"Wellesley has long supported the idea, as do we, that women are not only
equally competent in the working world, but also possess special powers
(albeit perhaps conditioned) that make us cooperators, nurtureres, and
caretakers.  These qualities lend themselves well to careers that serve 
others and to families that are stable and secure.  The women's movement gave 
us choices.  We do not wish to deny women the choice of motherhood and child
rearing.  By no means are we calling upon women to forfeit
caring qualities for the more male-associated combative and self-reliant
qualities.

"In fact, the women's movement sought to break down the wall that
distinguishes between masculine and feminine characteristiocs and
encouraged both sexes to empower themselves by acknowledging both their
masculine and their feminine attributes.  The fact that "women's work"
goes largely unpaid by no means depreciates its value.

"So what were we protesting when we wrote a petition that called Barbara
Bush an inappropriate commencement speaker?  If we support motherhood and
volunteer work, what is it that we have against Barbara Bush?  The plain
and simple fact is that Barbara Bush was not chosen because of her commendable
role as a mother, nor was she chosen for her admirable volunteer work.  If
such were the case, why were other equally dedicated mothers and community
volunteers not chosen?   The bottom line is that these women are not married
to George Bush.  She was selected because of her husband's accomplishments
and fame, not her own."

    Peggy Reid, Wellesly class of 1990

    Mike,
    
    It means that a person who has been taught how to be co�perative,
    and nurturing makes a better mother than one who has not been taught
    these things, just as a person who has been taught how to think
    analytically and question baseless assertions makes a better scientist
    than one who has not been taught these things.
    
    						Ann B.

    No, scientists make good mommies too. 8*)
    
    nla
    
    

>.109>"Wellesley has long supported the idea, as do we, that women are not only
>.109>equally competent in the working world, but also possess special powers
>.109>(albeit perhaps conditioned) that make us cooperators, nurtureres, and
>.109>caretakers.  These qualities lend themselves well to careers that serve

>        Does that mean that women make better mommies than scientists?

>-mike z

The only way being better at X,Y, or Z would cause you to be a worse A than
B is if being a good B *required* the lack of X,Y, or Z. So no Mike, I don't
believe that being a scientist requires the lack of cooperation, nurturing,
or caretaking.

	-- Charles

P.S. The conventional notes symbol for "stirring the *t" is ~/~. I suggest
    you use it when you're trying to be stirring.

    by the way, I don't think it has been truely�stressed here, but
    Barbara Bush's speech was highly praised and the woman that
    started the protest wrote a long letter that was recently published
    saying that the media distored the meaning of their protest, i.e.
    that it was against having a woman who is famous only because
    of derived status from her husband not against a woman who was
    'only' successful as a wife and mother.
    
    Bonnie

    Ok, I think I understand your question now. Rephrased in Logic 101
    terms it is now:
    
    	W have property CO,NU,and CA
    
    	M requires CO,NU, and CA
    	S does not require CO,NU, or CA (strict logic now...)
    
    Are W better M's than S's?
    
    We cannot draw any conclusion about how good S's W's are, so we have no
    way of comparing. However we can conclude that W's make better M's than
    X's that don't have CO,NU, or CA. If we believe from the postulates that
    ~W implies not CO,NU, or CA we could conclude that ~W was not as good an
    M as W, but the postulates do not support that conclusion (we cannot
    draw any inference about ~W from the given data).
    
    This STILL seems obvious to me.
    
    > Charles, you're so cute when you condescend!
    
    You're fishing for something. But then I guess a master would be good
    at that no?
    
    	-- Charles

    re: .115 (Mike Z.)
    
    � 	Are nurturing, cooperation, and caretaking more important to a
    � person who is a mommy, or a person who is a scientist?
    
    Only if nurturing, caretaking, and cooperation are relatively
    unimportant skills to the scientist.  I'd be willing to accept
    that such has been the case for nurturing and caretaking in the 
    tradional (i.e. family) sense.  My take on it is that cooperation
    is probably an important skill for scientists in today's world.
    And beyond that, it strikes me that the model for what makes
    for "good" scientific endeavor (and "good" business endeavor
    and "good" political endeavor) has been overwhelmingly shaped
    by men's vision of what "good" entails.  I personally suspect
    that while models of aggressive competition have sufficed to
    get us to this point, our continued survival as a species will
    depend far more on concepts of nurturing and caretaking than
    they have in the past.
    
    � I did ask if [women] make better mommies than scientists, since
    � it seemed they are better suited for mommyhood than science, with
    � these 3 special traits they may have.
    
    It seems to me as if the question is assumes that the two 
    activities are mutually exclusive or at least that having traits 
    such as nurturing, caretaking, and cooperation preclude having
    whatever traits are necessary to be a successful scientist
    (presumably objectivity and the like).  I don't think that 
    assumption is warranted.
    
    Steve

   � 	Are nurturing, cooperation, and caretaking more important to a
   � person who is a mommy, or a person who is a scientist?

I know of scientists who are studying dolphins and language (English, 
artificial, gestures, and dolphin language).  The scientists must obviously
be good caretakers if they don't want their dolphins to die and bring the
experiment to a premature close.  Dolphins are large and strong, so scientists
must cooperate with the dolphins and other scientists to move the dolphins
between tanks and such.   The scientists are nurturing the dolphins with
affection and with knowledge as both the scientists and dolphins learn.
Seems to me nurturing, cooperation, and caretaking are quite important for
this branch of science.  

Several branches of science require caretaking and cooperation.  The scientist
must often "babysit" an experiment that is time-sensitive.  If the experiment
must be watched for a time longer than the scientist is able to stay awake,
the scientist must cooperate with another scientist to observe the result.
Nurturing a petri dish is probably stretching it, so nurturing may not be
so important to some branches of science.

Nurturing and caretaking are quite important for people raising children
(daddies and mommies).  Cooperation is quite helpful, but there are quite 
a few people who are able to raise children without the help of other child
care givers.  So cooperation is an optional attribute for daddies and mommies.

Given the above it is more important for dolphin researchers to posess the 
combination of nurturing, cooperation and caretaking than for child care 
givers.   One could make arguments the other way as well.  Nurturing, 
cooperation, and caretaking are positive abilities that are required in a 
wide variety of careers. 

Is there any particular reason you picked these three particular attributes 
and these two "job classifications"?  Are there any other attributes you are 
interested in?  The ability to pontificate, to mislead through the use of 
numbers, the ability to use strawman arguments, are these more important 
attributes for a politician or a womannoter?   

			Bb

    
    re -.1
    
    guess he told you, huh ;-)

    
    Gotta admit, I have a problem with the global scope of both the
    Wellesley editorial and Mike's question.  Wellesley comes out
    sounding like it's saying that *all* women possess co_operator
    /nurturer/caretaker characteristics (they _do_ give a nod to
    social role conditioning, to be fair) that are "special" - which
    I interpret to mean "that men don't have".
    
    Mike's question reads to me as "...*all* women make better mommies
    than scientists".  Maybe you didn't mean it that way.
    
    But frankly, I don't want to be labeled with "special powers"
    any more than I want to be stuck with "women's place"
    limitations.   I've met plenty of men, including my husband,
    whose nurturer/caretaker characteristics go way beyond mine as
    far as children are concerned; he'd make a much better nurturing
    parent than I would.  Naturally, all these claims about Women
    Being Better Nurturers makes me feel guilty, pressured, and kind
    of defective. 
    
    Here's a particular woman who'd make a better (stereotyped)
    scientist than (stereotyped) mommie.  That doesn't make me any
    less worthwhile as a woman - as far as I can tell :^)  IMO, it's
    fairer to say that some *people* have better skills and
    satisfaction for nurturing/caretaking/co_operating than others,
    and gender is irrelevant.  <- well, I think so, anyway
                            
    Kathy

    re: .123
    
    Thanks for saying that!!!
    
    I've been feeling a little queasy about all this talk of women being
    nurturing/caretakers too.  I'm one of the last people in the world
    who would make a good mother, but just because I was born female I'm
    supposed to have those properties?  Puleeze!  
    
    Those little kids scare me to death when they cry, and the whole issue
    leaves me feeling like I'm missing something essential to my womanhood
    or something.  Bah Humbug!
    
    Karen.

    
   
    
   > But frankly, I don't want to be labeled with "special powers"
   > any more than I want to be stuck with "women's place"
   > limitations.   I've met plenty of men, including my husband,
   > whose nurturer/caretaker characteristics go way beyond mine as
   > far as children are concerned; he'd make a much better nurturing
   > parent than I would.  Naturally, all these claims about Women
   > Being Better Nurturers makes me feel guilty, pressured, and kind
   > of defensive
    
    
    Kathy,
    
    Generalizations are difficult because exceptions are all around us.
    The general thought is that woman are socially conditioned to nurture.
    I have to agree this is more true than untrue.
    
    Kate

    My commencement speaker was Julia Child Young, wife of then UN
    Ambassador Andrew Young.  I remember her speech clearly and it was very
    similar to the speech given by Barbara Bush at Wellesley, however Julia
    didn't have the opportunity to speak at Wellesley and her speech
    predated Barbara's by twenty years.  She was intelligent,
    well-educated, employed and an individual in her own right.  Merely
    holding a job you receive compensation for does not make your opinion
    any more valuable.  Show me your accomplishments, not your paycheck.
    
    Char
    

    
    This will probably seem silly, but is this a different Julia Child from
    the cook?

    re .127
    
    the cook is Mrs. Paul Child.  The other woman is Mrs. Julia Child
    *Young*.  Two very different individuals indeed!
    
    Judi