Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I really liked this article.  I think it makes a vital, valid point.  
    People lie to gain acceptance, and it's been costing women dearly.

    Ellen Goodman cites a scene from "When Harry met Sally..."  I'll cite
    a scene from another movie: Ghostbusters.  Remember the scene where
    a boy and a girl are being tested for psychic ability, and, regardless
    of whether they are wrong or right the tester is giving the boy an	
    electric shock after each answer, and praising the girl.  Ultimately,
    the boy gets angry.  But he *never* loses self-confidence.

    Why?

    As a student, the worst, most blatant sexism I encountered was from
    a woman teacher.  Once I forgot to put my name on an essay about
    "what I value most in people" (given to us as an exercise in adjective
    use and expository prose-writing in a foreign language class).  One of
    the other students, a good-looking, charismatic male, had done the
    same.  She had done nothing but praise his work to date, and never 
    failed to criticize of my opinions.  Guessing, she handed my paper
    back to him.  "That's not mine", he said, about the same time I 
    noticed it _was_ mine.  She handed it back to me with an unusually 
    hostile snarl, and the comment "Very shallow, Sharon.  You know what
    *I* value most in people?  Sincerity.  And this paper was very 
    insincere."

    I looked down at the paper to find the only "A" she ever gave me.  
    The paper was covered with glowing comments.  Insincerity was never 
    mentioned.

    What did she think this was buying her?  At whose expense?

    _Was_ it buying her anything?  It certainly didn't but her credibility
    with me, but she didn't seem to be concerned about that, either.

    Why not?

    What do you think?  Why would a woman perpetuate a double standard 
    that works against her?  What do you see as the _real_ risks entailed 
    in saying "the emperor has no clothes"?  Why, if women are the majority,
    are these risks at all?

	Sharon

    I have NO IDEA.  Maybe we are all really competitive when it comes down
    to it, and when you have been told "the way to win is to be XXX so you
    can gain YYY", you do what you think you have to.
    
    Great article.  I especially liked the study that showed that both
    sexes are likely to say different things depending on the sex of the
    person asking the question.
    
    Pam

    I loved that article too, when I read it, Sharon.
    
    I think you hit on it when you said self confidence.  Even though women
    constitute a political majority, as a group, women have been dependent
    on the good graces of men for so long, I think the majority of women
    lack the confidence in themselves, to buck the male system and get
    women's needs met, but also confidence in OTHER women that they too
    will back them up and also buck the system.
    
    I think it was the same issue of the Globe that ran an article on
    "Outing", (exposing gay people, specifically policitcal leaders, 
    against their will).  The article talked about the fear of coming out 
    and how it HAS to be a personal decision.  It said that, (and I'm 
    paraphrasing), if all gay people would stand up at once for 10 
    minutes, people would be forced to see how prevalent, how mainstream 
    it really is and that would be the beginning of the end of a lot of the 
    fear and mystery which fuels the hatred.  I feel the same thing can be
    said about feminists.  Many feminist women are really "in the closet", 
    believing in equality but afraid that if they "come out" and push for it 
    either in their private lives or in the public arena, they will be 
    singled out, branded as one of the few "strident, angry man-haters" 
    and will lose out in love and work.  We all know how the few vocal
    feminists are singled out for scorn and ridicule.  But would they scorn
    and ridicule ALL women????  They have to be safe in assuming that "out"
    feminists are a radical minority, rather than merely the courageous
    representatives of the needs and wants of ALL women, even the gaggle of
    little cuties men might want to "hit on" and take home.  Feminists,
    like gays, are ridiculed so that their numbers do NOT have to be
    realized and their politics do NOT have to be taken seriously. 
    
    Just as gay people NEED other gay people to show that gayness is not
    the rare, strange, disgusting perversion mainstream America has been
    allowed and encouraged to believe, feminist women, too, NEED other
    feminist women to show that those of us who are "out" are NOT so rare,
    so strange, so unique, but are really representative of a political 
    body that is so large it cannot be ignored.
    
    The fact that some of us are willing to be openly feminist, (or openly
    gay), and take the frontline heat paves the way for the average person 
    who still isn't quite sure that her or his political views will make 
    her or him an acceptable candidate for jobs, love and social acceptance. 
    
    Confidence.  Molly Yard has it and doesn't give a rats *ss what men 
    think of her as a sexual toy.  But she makes plenty of women shake in 
    their boots wondering how this woman can actually BE like that, even as 
    they know in their heart of hearts that Molly is right, and they 
    secretly cheer her on.  Secretly!  Now if we all stood up for 10
    minutes...
    
    It takes courage to rock the boat.  The courageous gay people will be
    the first ones out of the closet.  The courageous black people were the
    first to sit at the front of the bus, (led by the indomitable Rosa
    Parks).  And likewise, only the courageous women, (and the great
    feminist men that actively support them), are willing to sit at the
    front of the political machine.
    
    But worry not.  Every little victory toward equality strips away
    a little fear so that another layer of women become courageous.  And
    one of THEM stands up which strips away a little more fear so that yet 
    another layer becomes empowered.  Eventually, empowerment will trickle
    down to the most timid of women and then being female, (and/or being gay),
    will be no more "other" than being black.  They will simply be considered
    just more citizens to take part in the setting of the policital agenda 
    and the shaping of national policy.
    
    Though women's fight for equality has generally been paralleled to the 
    black fight for equality, I'm beginning to think it might be more 
    accurately be compared to and aligned with the gay movement.  (My
    declaration in -V2 of "Proud Bitch" is politically pretty similar to 
    "Gay Pride" now that I think of it!  
    
    You can't hide your skin color but you can hide your politics and your 
    sexual orientation.  In fact, feminists and gays are encouraged to hide, 
    to shut up about it, in large part because they challenge the established
    beliefs about them and force the mainstream, (white, straight, pre-
    dominantly male, middle America), to face their prejudice, take
    themselves off their superior pedestals and begin to learn that being
    human means much more than being a group of straight, white males and
    the women who minister to them.
    
    I am in now way commenting on gay people who are still "in hiding".  I 
    am against outing and believe that for them, coming out is probably more 
    of a risk than it is for a het woman to "come out" as an active feminist.
    To quote one politico in that article, (Frank?  Studds?), it is
    exhilarating when one comes out and stands up to be counted but no one
    should be forced to take this risk. 
    
    So although women are a political majority, only some of us are clearly 
    out right now, taking the heat and paving the way.  But like the
    courageous Frank, Studds, Yard, Wattleton, Steinem and all the rest, we 
    KNOW that the rest of "our kind" desperately wants what is being fought 
    for but through fear of the risk, for now remain unsure, stay safely 
    behind the closet door, and allow the status quo to prevail.

    But to tie it into the topic, I think that's a lot of the reason why
    women, (or gays or any "subordinate group"), censor their speech, (and 
    I believe they do), when in the company of males, (or straights or any 
    "dominant group").  I think that why straight, white men, (the "dominant
    group"), do it is completely different and another topic.

    re: Sandy (.3)
    I don't mean to rathole this discussion...But...
    
    Excuse me for inquiring but enquiring minds want to know. What the
    heck's so corageous about Gerry Studds? Didn't he get caught having
    sex with a male page who was barely beyond the age of statuatory rape?
    
    You draw a correlation between gay rights and feminism by saying that
    you can't hide behind your skin color but you can hide your sexual
    orientation or political beliefs. Well, for some of us it's as difficult
    to hide our gender as it is to hide our skin. What I'm trying to say
    is; Women are women, blacks are blacks. Not all women think like other
    women. Not all blacks think like other blacks. Both groups have been
    discriminated against. When you're a member of either group, it's hard
    as hell pretending your not. 
    
    
    Re:basenote
    
    I can tell whether my husband is speaking to a man or a woman on the
    phone without hearing the other side of the conversation. 
    
    Kate

re: .5

Kate, I think the parallel Sandy was drawing was between being out
or "in" about one's political beliefs, and being out or "in" about
one's sexual preference.  I think some people can and do keep their
feminist beliefs hidden in some situations, just as some gays can
and do keep their sexual preference hidden in some situations.  So
I think the parallel is apt.   
    
(Also, Studds, by the way, is an out gay politician, and therefore
courageous.  (If it weren't, you'd see alot more of them.) )

	MKV

    
    
    I think it's true that Studds was forced out by the Page "sex scandal."
    But I think his response to it was courageous.  Assuming that his
    only intention was to avoid committing perjury, he could have owned
    up to the event in question and just called it one of those things or
    some kind of deviation from his "real" life -- as some public figures
    have done in the face of such accusations.  But Studds came all the way
    out.  He acknowledged being gay, and he's made himself available as a
    speaker in gay/lesbian/bi political organizations.  He could have
    responded to the charges and then kept quiet.  This is what my father
    (who lives in Studds' district) said he ought to have done.  But Studds
    has claimed his identity as a gay man, and I think that is courageous.
    
    Also, it's true that Studds' district is not as conservative as the 
    Bible Belt, but it is overwhelmingly Catholic.  Studds has a history
    of supporting abortion rights for women, and even before he came out,
    he was considered a friend of the gay community (i.e., good on our
    issues).  Studds has been a popular congressman in a fairly
    conservative district even though he is very liberal, because he
    has represented his district on important economic issues (like fishing
    rights) and because he is believed to have integrity and courage.
    
    Justine

I thought that statutory rape was a crime.  The page was under the legal age.
I thought leaving the scene of an accident was a crime. And if Barney Frank
is found to *have* known (tacitly permitting and/or participating) about 
illegality, do you think he'll get jailed?

I do not think the Studds affair is about courage or sexual preference but
about the law; same with Barney Frank.  Would Dick Nixon have been courageous
if he'd admitted that he [tacitly] approved of wire-tapping?

All our congressmen, senators, and politicians up and down the ladder get
is a slap on the wrist when the TV cameras are turned their way.  Otherwise,
who gives a hoot about the law, or the citizen for that matter.

Perhaps we should move this to HOT BUTTONS?  Politicians on both sides make
me very cynical!!!

MM

P.S. If this moves to another note, please move this.

    re .11
    
    I disagree.  I believe the .10 noter was simply stating that no one is
    "above the law".  Simply because one is in a protected class does not
    absent them from charges of statutory rape or keeping a house of
    prostitution or anything else.  
    
    p.s. With numerous gay and lesbian family members and friends, I don't
    consider myself 'phobic. 
    
    VoD is not a shield,
    Marge 

    May we please move discussion of homophobia, homosexual congress
    persons etc to a separate note and return this note to the base note
    topic?
    
    thanks
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod