Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Re: the base noter..."women who we admire, women who excel in their
    niche, women who compete well with men"
    
    Didn't you forget women who compete well with women, women who excel
    at many things...or is that what etc. meant???          ;^)

    
    Are you thinking mostly of highly competetive fields like sports, so
    that examples from say the arts or sciences would not be quite what
    you're looking for?
    
    D.

    re .3, Mark-
    
    I may be all wet here but I'm not particularly receptive to the
    distinction you're making.  I think I'm hearing it a little differently
    than you intend so I'm going to try to show you how I'm hearing it.
    
    > women who have entered traditionally male-dominated fields and 
    > excelled (often to the surprise of the established males). What I 
    > am looking for are examples of women who overcome the negative bias 
    > associated with being a woman-(whatever) and become known in their 
    > field as a (whatever) first and woman second. Sort of like how Shirley 
    > Muldowney went from being known as a woman racer to a racer that
    > happened to be a woman. Know what I mean?
    
    Most of that expresses well the idea of admiring competence regardless
    of gender, or overoming adversity and bias.  Great, that part doesn't
    bother me at all.  But the part about being known "as a (whatever) first
    and a woman second" means that the unconscious bias, the standard of
    judging, is male; and furthermore, that women should aspire to be other
    than women, they should aspire to be treated as male.  Its an
    objectionable way to look at excellence, as something that means one
    has overcome womanhood to be excellent.
    
    Eh, sort of.  You didn't say it, but I'm reading it that way, or
    rather, I'm protesting against that idea.  If that's not what you 
    mean, I apologize for misinterpreting.
    
    Anyway, next you said:
    
    > Unfortunately, I find myself unable to properly articulate it.
    > Hopefully someone will provide a couple of good examples so I 
    > can say "yeah, that's it."
    
    I had a similar basenote in V2, here was my way of putting it.
    Does this help?
================================================================================
Note 350.0                        Women of Note                       63 replies
SKYLRK::OLSON "green chile crusader!"                19 lines  19-DEC-1988 14:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With a tip of the hat to our archivist (thanks, Jody!) I'd like
    to reactivate a topic from V1; topic 147, previously called
    "Women We Admire".  This was prompted by my receipt of a NASA
    newsletter which reported the names of four more shuttle crews.
    Five women will fly on those missions, and I feel that a note
    honoring their achievements is appropriate.  More than that, 
    though, lets use this topic to mark similar accomplishments, 
    the exploits of women of whom we are proud.

    Mission STS-33, 10 Aug 1989, will include Mission Specialist
    Kathryn C. Thornton, Ph.D.

    Mission STS-34, 12 Oct 1989, will include Mission Specialists
    Shannon W. Lucid, Ph.D, and Ellen S. Baker, M.D.

    Mission STS-32, 13 Nov 1989, will include Mission Specialists
    Bonnie J. Dunbar, Ph.D, and Marsha S. Ivins.

    DougO

You mean like that woman (why am I so bad at names) who wins the Itidarod
(sp?), the back-breaking marathon dog-sled race?

Or Marie Curie, who made a name for herself as a Scientist who happens
to be a woman rather than a "woman scientist" (the implication that it is
a different, and less competitive, category than just 'scientist) in 
a time when women weren't supposed to be scientists at all?

I think I know what you mean, Doctah - you mean the women who prove to 
the men in male-dominated fields that just because men typically are in
that field that it doesn't mean women can't excel.  (So that, while
Florence Nightengale was an amazing person, she doesn't qualify because
she didn't prove to the world that women could succeed in nursing against
all expectations.)

D!

Of course pointing out the women who excell means that any woman could do well
if she just tried, or that most women aren't really good at the effort.
	Mez

    re .8, my interpretation, too, Mez.
    
    Lorna
    

	Small nit here to point out.

	>Florence Nightengale - did do something that "women" did not do
	nurse men in battle at that point in history.

	I guess what I fear here is that we will loose sight of the fact
	that many women over the centuries have "excelled" and not been
	recognized because they did not do "men's" stuff.  And of course
	"men's" stuff keeps getting redefined as more and more women do
	it so it (what ever it is) is devalued as something "women" do.

	I would perfer to acknowledge any/all women by what ever criterial
	desired as being excellent and get out of the "male-bias" trap of
	seeing women who do what men do as being somehow more excellent
	(if that is a grammatical possibility).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			

    
    re Mez and Lorna,
    
    Oh, c'mon, I didn't read the Doctah's request for this topic that
    way.  Pointing out a few noteworthy women's accomplishments is *not*
    a 'putdown' to women who don't have herculean accomplishments any more
    than pointing out significant men's accomplishments is a putdown to
    'ordinary' men.  May *you* feel that way.  I've got enough confidence
    in myself that I don't happen to.  This is simply a topic for
    celebrating women's accomplishments (is that right, Doc?)
    
    So here's another which I entered in V2 (I think):  Lynn Hill,
    rock climber.  Leads and puts in new rock climbs at the 5.12 level
    and up (5.12 = *really*, *really*, *REALLY* hard!)  Makes a living
    off this stuff too.  Not many men who can claim that, and there are
    plenty who would like to.  *And* she's only 5'2"! - another shorty
    like me (-:
    

    
    re:.11
    yes! this is the problem with the topic as raised...
    

Actually Ellen, it was more a response to D!'s note than the base note, and
probably a direct outgrowth of finally starting to read The Feminist Mystique.
	Mez

    re .15, Herb, since when isn't Mark an "accepted member" of womannotes? 
    He's been writing here for ages and I consider him to be just as much
    an "accepted member" as any of the women who write here!  
    
    I would rather have seen a topic about women to admire, in general, 
    than women whom we admire because they have competed with men
    and succeeded.  Something bothers me about that, as though the only way
    for a woman to be admirable or to excel is to compete with men, on
    men's turf.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re several back - the woman who has won the Iditerod (sp?) the most is
    Susan Butcher.  I believe another woman has also won it since Susan
    stunned the dog-sledding world by accomplishing the feat.
    
    Re Herb -
    
    It is my impression that Mark has been 'accepted' into this community -
    and has been since before I became active here.  What you are reading
    as "suspicious" of his motive, I am reading as a pretty
    straight-forward attempt to clarify what kind of examples he had in
    mind.  We have a couple of other topics about women we admire, and
    we're searching for the differentiators to determine who belongs where
    :-)  It can be very difficult to find appropriate role-models for all
    sorts of activities.  Men might have difficulty finding examples of
    other men who could be admired for their outstanding ability as
    care-givers, for example.
    
    Alison

    
    gee, even *i* accept mark
    

    Herb,

    Perhaps if you had read the replies more carefully, you would not
    make comments such as those in .15.

    Here are quotes from people discussing the nature of the basenote:

    "I may be all wet here but I'm not particularly receptive to the
    distinction you're making.  I think I'm hearing it a little differently
    than you intend so..." -- Doug Olson

    "I think I know what you mean, Doctah - you mean..." -- D! Carroll

    "I guess what I fear here is that we will lose sight of the fact
    that..." -- Peggy Leedberg  (Notice that she is using the future
    tense, and is not objecting to what had already been written.)

    "I didn't read the Doctah's request for this topic that way."
    -- Ellen Gugel

    "Yes! This is the problem with the topic as raised..." -- Joe White
    
    "It was more a response to D!'s note than the base note, and..."
    -- Mez Zurko

    As you should be able to perceive, they are unclear as to the exact
    nature of the distinction Mark is trying to make.  They are trying
    to *not* misrepresent him, while making it clear to other readers
    that such misrepresentation is possible.  Ironically, you are
    attempting to chastise people for going to an effort which you
    yourself fail to make, preferring instead to misrepresent them,
    claiming that they are attacking Mark's motives, not trying to
    understand what effect Mark desires.

    						Ann B.

    re:15
    
    			WRONG!!!!!
    
    I can read the words, and read the title, but I cannot "hear" him or 
    see his body language.  So I can only go on what the words SAY, and not
    necessarily what he MEANT them to say.
    
    "Women Who Excell" means ALL women who excell.  By what he wrote in the
    base note, and the explanation that followed by another note (and
    approved as 'exactly' saying what he meant, he intended this note for
    *women who break the sterotypes*, and show to the world that women can
    do what men can do, even better.
    
    I have no problems with such a note. I don't think anyone here has.
    HOWEVER, don't title it for a super-class of "women who excell", when
    you mean it for a sub-class "women who excell- in 'men's domain".
    
    I know he stated that women who excell in the broader sense could also
    be listed, but they were "not as much fun".  This *implies to me* a
    back-door acceptance, grudgingly given, with strong connotations that
    such women are not as important as those who succeed in a 'man's world.
    That is what I object to, and what I observed the other's objecting to.
    
    So don't imply (state, really) that there is a conspiricy against men ,
    when in fact, all that is being asked of you, is that you read the
    words you wrote to see what they said, not just assume they said what
    you meant. Realizing, in addition, that many people of different
    backgrounds are reading this, and will process it with all their
    pre-existing experiences to form their own connotations of what is
    being 'said'.  And if our translation does not match what you meant it
    to be, consider using this as a learning experience.  Afterall, we all
    inhabit both this planet and this notesfiles, and must learn to
    co-exist.
    
    mary
    
    ps.. sorry i could not state who wrote what, but i seldom note the
    author, just the words & meaning behind.  (Thus i can seldom tell a
    'male' note from a 'female' note.)

    
    
    it seems to me that the initial question was, in fact, several 
    questions, each with their own special slant:
    
    >This note is for entries about women who we admire
    	pretty harmless; 'admire' is nicely vague and subjective
    
    >women who excel in their niche
    	not the same thing, obviously; 'niche' is a potentially
    	value-loaded word, as is, arguably 'excel'
    
    >women who compete well with men, etc.
    	not the same thing, yet again; does 'compete well' mean
    	'win' or does it mean 'with sportsmanship' or even 'redifine
    	conflict'
    
    >title: women who excel
    	tends to give precedence to the second case which is, arguably,
    	the most controversial
    
    

	It is not the degree to which one excells or the area but 
	WHOSE CRITERIA is used in the defining process.

	Women over the centuries have excelled - have they been
	acknowledged - by whom - for what.  

	When someone enters a note for the posting of "women who
	excell" and the criteria is that they over came being a
	woman and excepted as x first.  I am sorry but to me that
	sounds like second class status for the rest of us who are
	women first and x second.  We just don't make it.

	If the note had been entered as a discussion about women
	who have broken sterotypes, have been the firsts without the
	added word "excell" then there would be less questioning
	by some members of this file.  But that is not the way the
	note read - though that may have been the intent.

	Many of the women I know of who have "excelled" in a man's
	area are not women I would admire.  They no longer see 
	themselves as part of the female population - they have 
	escaped and have no plans on ever returning and they spare
	no time in telling other women what they think of women
	in women space.  I no longer admire someone who has "made it"
	if that person has produced more than their share of misery
	for others and I also no longer admire someone who will
	not take care of themselves and make sure they get what they
	need (not want but need).  I can understand each of these
	personalities and I might even envy them some BUT I do not
	admire them, I do not plan to emulate them.  In fact I try
	very hard to not be like them - I try to care about myself and
	others.

	_peggy

    
    the previous is not intended to imply any wilful antagonism on
    the part of the basenoter; merely to show how, to my mind, an
    ostensibly simple question could convey unintended and conflicting
    messages.
    

Re: .12
Lynn Hill! GOD she's good. I have a poster of her on the hard move of "Rude
Boys" at Smith Rock (5.12c?). It's up in my office. I have a video of her doing
the climb. Can you say "climber porn"? Like Warren Miller makes ski pornography.
It has nothing to do with the sex of the person climbing, just HOT climbing. I
could sit and watch her climb for hours... sheer poetry. She makes it look SO
EASY and SO OBVIOUS and I can't even get off the ground on those climbs! She is
just SO GOOD.

	'scuse me - I'm babbling.
	Uncritical hero worship is not a pretty sight :-)
	-- Charles

Frankly, I can't see what the problem is...why would a note about "women
who excel in male-dominated areas" mean that we don't value women who
excel in women-dominated areas?  There are other notes for that...and women
who excel in general.

I understand the Doctah saying hearing about women smashing stereotypes
is "more fun".  It has nothing to do with women who do well without smashing
stereotypes being less good...I, for one, get a gleeful grin whenever I
picture a bunch of men in some male-dominated field, who think they have
some sort of god-given superiority over women (note: WHO - not all...if
you aren't that type then I amnot talking about you), staring open-mouthed
and stunned at some women showing them up!  It's *fun* to think about
all of their internal stereotypes being smashed to bits.  The more prejudiced
sexist etc I imagine them to be, the more fun I have imagining a woman
blowing their socks off!

So, I greatly admire Mother Theresa, or whoever.  But I don't get the
same gleeful grin as I do when I hear abou Susan Bucher.  That doesn't mean
she hasn't done good things (she has probably done more better things),
it just means that my own little special place in my heart for stereotype
smashing didn't get stroked.

D!

    I see what Mark means, and I hear what he is seeking...
    
    I've smashed a few stereotypes/molds myself.  I was the second woman to
    major in electronics at my high school, and the first female
    covaledictorian.  I was also the first woman to design and complete a
    major in engineering/technical-writing at my technical college (another
    had designed a curriculum, but had not carried it through primarily
    because she was convinced the M/F odds would be against her and would
    overwhelm her)....
    
    Is that what you're looking for?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    i think a topic 'women who smash stereotypes' would be great
    

    well now that we know what -n- of us think of the topic, and of others'
    opinions and interpretations of the topic, does anyone know of any
    women who excell to mention here?  of 29 replies here I think there
    have been around 4, and at least 2 were mentioned only as illustrations
    to the argument!
    
    Sally Ride.
    
    Maria (on Sesame St for the last 20 years or so.)
    
    Katherine Hepburn.
    
    My 8th grade algebra teacher, who taught me not to be afraid to ask
    questions, or admit I didn't know an answer.  Any teacher who can
    convey that to a kid, excells in my book.
    
    Gotta go take care of a sick kid.  Your turn!
    

    Well, I for one found the meta-discussion quite interesting, since I
    had the same reaction to reading the topic ... thanks, Mark, for
    changing the title!
    
    I'd like to mention Catharine Melhorn, my college choral director.  
    
    Music conductors for the most part are male; Cathy stands out in my
    mind as one of the best conductors I've ever sung for.  She is crisp,
    precise, energetic, a visionary, a technical fiend, an authority on
    German music, and is able to get wonderfully mature sounds out of
    averagely good female voices aged 18-21.  Her choirs sound like women
    singing, not girls singing.  She is inspiring.  After singing for her,
    you never forget about combining technical accuracy with conveying the
    soul of the music ... 
    
    If you're ever in the Amherst/Northampton area around early December, I
    *STRONGLY* recommend you find out when the Christmas Vespers concert is
    at Mount Holyoke College -- it is a glorious festival, largely due to
    the orchestration of detail by Catharine Melhorn...
    
    Pam

    	On the tail of 246.32
    
    	I saw a piece the other day about a woman composer named
    	Zwilich, I believe.
    
    	Anyway, the piece talked about how most composers don't
    	really become that well known until they are dead (or
    	something like that). But, she is very well known and
    	her works are being played all over the world. They
    	emphasized her ability as a composer, etc.
    
    	Very interesting piece.
    
    	Scott

    
    ellen zwilich
    i believe she won the pulitzer prize a year or two ago
    have never heard her stuff, but she is highly regarded in the field
    

    she was with John Williams and the pops on PBS sometime last week...
    Saw some, like all....

    How about
    
    Janet Guthrie and Kitty Muldowny (the woman who was the subject of the
    movie Heart Like A Wheel) in the world of auto racing.
    
    Amelia Erhardt and Pancho Barnes in the world of aviation.
    
    Tony

Let's talk smashed sterotypes:

   Stereotype:  Nurses were unwashed, untrained Alsatian Sanctuary sorts
                ['Sisters' is another story, better discussed elsewhere]
   F/N:         Upper class, got training, was serisouly into hygiene

   Stereotype:  Nurses [_or_ Sisters for that matter] weren't battlefield
                capable.  Women in the battle hospitals were immoral, 
	        unwashed, and generally turned profit.
   F/N:         Trained a corps of able women who faced up to situations
                that made many a medical orderly toss his lunch.  Also 	
                she maintained a high moral standard and saw to it that
                the women she trained were not subjected to the fallout of
                mistaken impressions.

    	RE: 246.36
    
    	Tony,
    
    	Kitty Muldowney should be Shirley Muldowney. But, you're
    	right about both woman.
    
    	And, back some years ago, when no one would give Janet
    	a car, A. J. Foyt told her she could drive one of his
    	(and she did).
    
    	I was sorry to see Janet gone so quickly from USAC/CART
    	scene.
    
    	Scott

    I'll second Sally Ride.  (Make that Doctor Sally Ride.  Astrophysics.)
    
    Did you know that Susan Butcher, besides winning the Iditerod so many
    times, has climbed Mt McKinley twice, one time with her entire dog
    team, pulling a sled?
    
    (btw, it is "sled dog racing", not "dog sled racing", as it is the dogs
    who do the work.)
    
    Kitty O'Neil, the deaf stunt woman.  Nicely portrayed by Stockard
    Channing in a TV movie several years ago.

    Margaret Mead
    Jane Goodall
    General ????? (Who was that woman that I saw on 60 Minutes who taught
                   electronic theory?)
    Connie Chung
    Diane Sawyer
    Patricia McGovern
    
    etc all...
    
    Kate
    

    Admiral Grace Hopper, the mother of compilers and high level languages. 
    She may have been bumped up a rank or two, but last I knew she was a
    Navy Admiral and was working for DEC in Washington DC.
    
    There was a nice exhibit, My Daughter the Scientist, at the Chicago
    Museum of Science and Industry.  Unfortunately I am terrible with names
    and don't remember many of the people.
    
    			Bb

    
    I wonder what some of these women had to do in order to achieve what
    they did?  Did they, for example, encounter any particular obstacles in
    their paths because they were women, or did they just "smash through
    those stereotypes" like a breeze?
    
    Dorian

>    they did?  Did they, for example, encounter any particular obstacles in
>    their paths because they were women, or did they just "smash through
>    those stereotypes" like a breeze?
 
I hardly think becoming one of the world's best fisherpeople or rock climbers
is "a breeze", even if they *didn't* encounter problems because they were
women.  Being extraordinary takes effort and dedication no matter what sex
they are.

D!

    
    .43 -
    
    Agreed. But the term "stereotype smashing" suggested that there were
    difficulties that these women, because they were women, had to contend
    with. I just wanted to raise the question of what some of them were.
    
    I'm thinking for example of Elizabeth Blackwell, who I believe was the
    first woman to graduate from medical school in the U.S. and did much to help
    other women follow her. For a long time she couldn't get into any med
    school, because none would accept her, because she was a woman (this
    was in the mid-19th cenutury). And when one finally did, in Vermont, 
    it was as a joke. And after she became a doctor and was making house 
    calls, sometimes in the evening, she was perceived as a prostitute. 
    Little things like that, you know, that are the essential stuff of 
    stereotype smashing... ;-)  I just think it's important not to lose sight 
    of that.
    
    Just my view,
    
    Dorian

    Good point, Dorian -- knowing the obstacles makes the achievement
    that much more inspiring, and obstacles are frequently inherent in
    "stereotype smashing".

    However, I'm not sure I agree with the notion of separating those
    obstacles into categories - "obstacles that these women encountered
    because they were women", for example.  Sometimes that's an accurate
    description, sometimes not: in many cases, a woman with the "wrong"
    ethnic background would have encountered different (maybe more, maybe
    not, but unquestionably different) obstacles than one who fit the 
    stereotype in other ways).  Obstacles are not presented because
    of one trait alone, they are presented to the composite whole.  
    Sometimes you can trace it to one trait alone, but often not.

    So, if the obstacles were presented because of the woman's race, 
    educational background, or sexual orientation, I'm still interested.
    It's the fact that those "obstacles" were overcome that has power,
    not the prejudice that engendered the obstacle.

	Sharon

    .45 -
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the basenoter speaking of wanting to see
    more women in direct competition with men, I assumed that when he said
    stereotype, he meant specifically sexual stereotype. That's why I was
    looking at obstacles that the women faced because they were women and
    not for some other reason, though of course they may well have been
    factors too.
    
    Dorian

Re . 44 -

Get your facts straight, will you? You call yourself a historian! Sheesh.

Elizabeth Blackwell did not go to medical school in Vermont (though she was 
accepted by one in Vermont), she went to one in New York State and it was 
that one that accepted her as a joke. This is from the book jacket of her 
Autobiographical Sketches:

"In an age when many women never saw doctors because physical 
examination by a male offended the mores of feminine modesty, Elizabeth 
Blackwell, born in 1821, fought for the entry of women into the medical 
profession. Refusing the suggestion that she disguise herself as a male 
applicant, she was turned down by all the better medical schools. At Geneva 
Medical College in western New York State, students were polled on whether 
a woman should be admitted. Thinking this a joke, they voted a hilarious 
yes, and thus [Blackwell] began her formal training in America. Her medical 
career was full of stumbling blocks. She was disbarred from New York 
hospitals and dispensaries, ignored by her medical colleagues, and was 
mistaken for a prostitute when making evening calls. To overcome some of 
these obstacles she founded the New York Infirmary for Women and 
Children..."

Do your homework next time,  :-)

Dorian