Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    In this world we are never totally "free", we always have certain
    guidelines and barriers that we must adhere to.  However, more and more
    in this country (USA) we, as women, are become able to live freely
    within the same guidelines that the men of this country must adhere to.
    
    Choice is the ability to make decisions for ourselves.  Making those
    decisions within the confines of our freedom described above, we can
    guide our lives to be however we want them to be.
    
    With every choice we make, we must accept the consequences of that
    choice.  Just because we MAKE a choice, does not mean that we will
    enjoy or relish every consequence of that choice.  
    
    Our choices in our lives must have a priority scheme.  We can make
    certain decisions for our lives that must override other choices we
    might want to make for ourselves.  With our choices, we must sacrifice
    our ability to make other choices....we must accept that we cannot have
    everything
    
    Let's say, perhaps, that my one goal in life is to be a WHATCHAMAZIGIT. 
    Yet, in that profession, I am required, by the codes of that
    profession, to paint my hair purple and wear bells on my toes.  I
    ABHORE wearing bells on my toes.  But, the CHOICE that I've made to be
    a WHATCHAMAZIGIT is more important to me than the choice I would like
    to not wear bells on my toes.  I will accept that I have to wear bells
    on my toes sometimes, because it is but a small price to pay for the
    joy I gain from being a WHATCHAMAZIGIT.
    
    Certain choices in our lives rule out our ability to make other choices
    in our lives.  As professional women, we might not like the fact that,
    in order to be respected and to appear professional, we must sometimes
    wear pantyhose.  Conversely, a professional man, in order to be
    respected and appear professional, must sometimes wear a three-piece
    suit.  Given that we WANT to be in that profession, our choice to do so
    might sometimes override other choices that we might want to make.
    
    Society might recommend certain codes for certain situations, but we
    ALWAYS have the choice to prioritize our choices the way that we want
    to.  If your most important prioritized choice for you is to live a
    life FREE of all confines of clothing, that IS a viable choice for you
    to make (there are year-round nudist colonies), but with that choice,
    you accept the fact that you will have limited contact with the outside
    world.
    
    With life there is ALWAYS some give and take....we can NEVER, nor
    SHOULD we ever be allowed to, have everything the exact way we want it. 
    We MUST be denied sometimes in order to keep the desire for choice
    alive.  Otherwise, what is the joy of living without the challenge of
    choice?
    
    Freedom has it's restrictions, just as Choice has it's price.
    
    
    Kathy

Really, it's in my upbringing.....

A bounded order and/or rules can be looked at two ways.  The first is one of
restriction and the second is actually one of freedom, as in not having to make
countless little decisions - or to continually replicate those decisions - thus
leaving one free to creatively express self (as bounds, etc. have already
been defined).

Here come the groans....it is, however, true:

The best analogy I can think of relates to sports.  Take figure skaters:  within
context, they make express themselves to the level of their own expertise and
creativity.

I have to really disagree with you, though, Kath.  IMO, we are on the verge of
nothing significant in gains for women.

IMO, if men are playing on a football field, then women are playing on a
squash court.

The problem, for me, is that the bounded order for women is so restrictive as
to make it seem that you never really have *freedom of choice* in even the 
simplest of decisions.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Barb

Freedom an inherent part of choice?  Yes and no.

Yes, in that when faced with options (be they good or bad or too few or too
many) and the need to choose, I have the *freedom* to select one of them.

No, in that I do not always have the autonomy or *freedom* to define
those options and ensure how many of them are available to me.  Quite
often our choices are defined and limited by what sex we are, how much
education we have, who we know, how much earning power we have, how we
look, etc.

Admittedly, it can be argued that we have the *freedom* to change all these
things; however, I think it can also be argued that the *necessity* to
change is an infringement on freedom.

nla

p.s.  Sara, I am confused about your use of the word "enslave..." in the
base note and how it related to choice and freedom.  Will you please
explain further?

p.p.s.  As a member of the "Little Things Count" club, I don't see why we
shouldn't try to change the world or some small part of it--in this string
or anywhere!!! 8*)

    
    
    
    RE: .3
    
    I can think of VERY few options that would ever be denied me solely
    based on the fact that I was a woman.
    
    
    Please elaborate?  Some examples might be helpful for me to see clearer
    exactly what sorts of things I could be denied SOLELY because I was a
    woman.
    
    Thx.
    
    k

    re: .4
    
    I don't know you, Kathy, so will not attempt to list any options
    that you personally might be denied.
    
    A couple of generic examples (pertinent to the US) before I'm out 
    the door:
    --control of reproductive system
    --participation in combat
    
    I'll see if I can come up with some more tonight (although I don't
    necessarily think quantity has a lot to do with it).  What are the
    VERY few options you could think of?
    
    nla
    

"freedom" really means "number of options available."

There is some critical number of options...more than that is freedom, fewer
is not.

Kathy, the problem with your logic is that EVERYTHING becomes a choice.
if I hold a gun to your head and say "give me all your money or I will kill
you", you certainly have a choice, and you must prioritize: which is more
important to you, your money or your life?

in that example, of course, the lack of freedom (despite the existence of
a choice) is obvious.  But there are grey areas.  Exactly how much choice
do you have to have to be free.

So, if the "rules of the game" say a woman must wear a skirt to be accepted
in the professional world, then the woman has three (main) choices: she
can choose to wear a skirt, she can choose not to try to succeed in the
professional world, or she can break the rules, and try and succeed anyway.

Your note seems to imply that you ought to accept the fact that if you
want to be a whatchamazigit, you have to dye your hair purple.  But - why
should you?  Why does that rule exist?  Is it enforced as vigorously with
others as it is with you?  Your freedom has been decreased a certain amout
by the elimination of the choice to be a whatchamazigit and not have purple
hair.

I get the feeling your note is saying that women ought not complain about
lack of freedom in things like having to wear high heels to be thought
beautiful or wear a skirt to be professionally acceptable - after all, 
women have the choice to simply not look beautiful or not be professional.
I object to this logic!  Why shouldn't we *change* the rules rather than
making our choices around the original rules?

Basically, your note can be summed up in the cliche' "If you want to play, you
gotta pay."  (your last sentance says it all.)  This is a fundamental precept
of our society.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You can't always
get what you want.  Nothing good is free.  etc, etc.  Have you ever wondered
where this deepset philosophy of ours comes from?  And is it really necessary?
Our society/culture is obsessed with this concept of EARNING.  This attitude
is reflected in a lot of places...some relatively benign (likes yours), some
not so benign (like the almost subconcious attitude many people have that
homeless people must be doing something *wrong* and they are lazy, and if they
just worked hard they wouldn't be homeless anymore.)

And even if you accept this idea that nothing is free (i'm not sure I do)
why is it that some people are expected to pay more than others??

D!

>    I can think of VERY few options that would ever be denied me solely
>    based on the fact that I was a woman.

Hundreds. Thousands. Too many to count.

The problem is that you are looking at an "option" as an atomic thing - whereas
I am looking at it as a combination thing, which is really what is going on.

F'rinstance, women and men both have the options of becoming engineers.
But, men can do so without raising any eyebrows and without fighting any
stereotypes. Therefore the atomic option of "becoming an engineer" is open
to them.  Women, however, *don't* have that option.  They have the 
option of "becoming an engineer and encountering societal resistence to
do so."  Women must choose between being an engineer and having society's
support.  A man need make no such choice!  He gets *both*.  Therefore, he is
more free than you are.

The option that has been denied you is the option of doing something without
a fight.

(Obviously men are also denied options based on their sex... Men are denied
the option of being able to wear a dress without being stared at, for instance.)

D!

    
                 D,
                      Lets pretend.  You have a womans clothing store and you 
    wish your customers to be *only* lesbians.  A man walks in and lays a 
    resume down and asks for a job....Will you give it to him?  Do you have
    the right to turn him down *just* because he is a man?  Should you have
    the "right" to turn him down just because he is a man?  You *own* the
    store......what "rights" do you have in this case? 
    
                      The law says you have *no* option here.  You,
    according to law, must hire him and yet *you* own this store.  Your
    options are governed now by law.  This has been the question for years.
    Not just gender related, but race, religion, ect,ect.  
    
                      Women by and large have had fewer choices
    thru out history.  It is my belief that it is changing.  The change
    will not happen overnight....its still happening.  My daughter has more
    choices than her mother did...and I'm glad.
    
    
    Dave

    re .8:
    Did you say customers when you meant employees?
    
    Or is it obvious that lesbians wouldn't buy from a male? ;-)

    Here we are, another highly intellectual abstract ethical philosophical 
    debate on, what do ya know, skirts and pants.  Women can wear either
    pants or skirts, but men do not have that choice.  Patrick Henry once
    said, "Give me liberty or give me death".  But I think we can be
    reasonably sure that even Mr. Henry was not willing to die for the
    liberty to wear skirts.
    
    Saw a colleague the other day wearing a T-shirt that seiz:  "Life is 
    hard, then you die".  Sorta puts everything in their proper perspectives, 
    doesn't it?
    
    Eugene 

    RE: .9
    
                No.....What are her rights as an owner?  Does it make good
    sense, in a lesbian clothing store, to hire a man to service woman
    customers?  My point here is don't you make decisions based on
    projected needs and services?  What could be taken as a discriminatory 
    practice may only be good strategic planning for a viable business.
    
               FWIW we do it all the time at Digital.  The sales manager,
    sending a sales person, to a first time customer has to weigh *ALL*
    factors before deciding which of his people should go and have the best
    chance to make the sale.  Bottom line is "black ink".
    
    
    Dave

re: .8
>                      Lets pretend.  You have a womans clothing store and you 
>    wish your customers to be *only* lesbians.  A man walks in and lays a 
>    resume down and asks for a job....Will you give it to him?  Do you have
>    the right to turn him down *just* because he is a man?  Should you have
>    the "right" to turn him down just because he is a man?  You *own* the
>    store......what "rights" do you have in this case? 
    
    No, you can't turn him down because he's a man, but you can drum up
    reasons not to hire him (oh, we have someone more experienced in
    clothing tagging who is more highly qualified than you and just happens
    to be a women).  This has happened numerous times to women I know.
    
    
re: .10
    

>    Saw a colleague the other day wearing a T-shirt that seiz:  "Life is 
>    hard, then you die".  Sorta puts everything in their proper perspectives, 
>    doesn't it?
    
    No, it doesn't.  At least not for me.  Your perspective is vastly
    different from mine.  Life is harder for some than others.  Which it
    shouldn't necessarily be.
    
    I feel the "choice/freedom" discussion tapdancing delicately close to
    one half saying "hey - this is serious - there are freedoms which are
    not available to one gender that are available to other - choices one
    gender can freely make that the other can't", and it sounds like the
    other half is saying "prove it" or "you're too sensitive".
    
    -Jody
 

I am having trouble framing a reply to my own note!  Sheesh!

I have long had trouble identifying with the Women's Movement.  I do believe
that women have been repressed, even effectively enslaved, by some of the limits
placed on them by society.  The trouble is, I don't see this predicament as
unique to women.  The set of restrictions are unique; the application of a set
of restrictions is not. 

None of us is ever wholly free.  We are bound by a thousand little things that
determine who we are, how we act, dress, speak, think, love.  Even when we
reject aspects of them, we are shaped by our society and our experiences in it.

In the normal course of life we choose within the limits imposed on us, and are
free within that range of options.  We are free to reject that range of options,
but pay a price for doing so.

The range of options changes over time.  In the '50s, June Cleaver ruled.  In
the '70s and '80s, the Corporate Woman ruled.  Am I wholly free?  I chose to
have children and to put their raising, their needs, in a more important place
in my life than my career.  I work part-time, and my career has suffered for it,
since I cannot put in 45-50+ hr weeks, expect my children to park and wait till
the bug is found, and in opsys development you need to find the bugs in time to
meet a schedule.  It took a while, but I came to understand and work within the
limits that came with the path I chose.  I educated some supervisors and
managers (many were women) as well as myself along the way.

The point is not "oh poor Sara".  The point is that effecting change, bucking
the system, has a price.  So does conforming.  You choose your own path, and
your own costs.

>The point is not "oh poor Sara".  The point is that effecting change, bucking
>the system, has a price.  So does conforming.  You choose your own path, and
>your own costs.
    
    Well said.  I believe we each make choices with collateral
    consequences.  Some choices are closed to us by nature: men cannot bear
    children.  Some choices are less comfortable by social standards: men
    are derided for wearing skirts. Women are given little support for
    becoming engineers.  Still, we do make choices which carry
    consequences.  Sara said it very well, "You choose your own path, and
    your own costs."
    
    mdh

    The 'burden' of those costs vary from one person to another.
    (e.g. perhaps as a function of the impoverishment -can't think of the
    proper antonym- of the ego wrt that particular 'oppression')
    

there's another aspect to these issues of choice and freedom that occurs to me.
I think issue might get another whole set of responses in, say, Blacknotes.  The
issue is this: how does your "place in life" -- your race, your gender, your
economic status, your physical status -- affect the enabling or disabling of
the paths available to you?  That is, how are your range of options determined
by the circumstances of your place and life?

Herb, your .16 is about this, I think.  A deliberately extreme example:

A child growing up impoverished in an inner city, who sees brutality and crooked
cops and streets ruled by gangs and extreme drug and alcohol abuse and adults
who are either hopless themselves or whose offerings seem unrealistic and pale
in comparison to what the glamorous criminals offer and where school is not a 
safe place to be -- how can such a child ever be free?

Similarly, a woman who is beaten and thinks so ill of herself that she does not
even lift her head to look for a way out -- is she *able* to exercise choice,
does her range of options offer any freedom?

A man who has little education in a poor economy, who cannot find a job, who is
homeless and has no place or person to help him, has he any choices?

I wish I did know how to fix this.  But I don't.

    One's reaction to 'stuff' viewed as oppressive is partially determined by
    one's level of self-esteem. 
    The folks cited in .-1 are likely to be quite impoverished.
    
    
    				herb

Herb you are maddeningly succinct!  almost enigmatic.  I'm gonna take lessons...
someday.  :-)

Re 750.96:
    >May I suggest that many, many women do not realize that the 'choices'
    >they make are instigated by the patriarchy, by the media?  
    
    Has it occurred to you that simply acknowledging the so-called
    patriarchy, that you are, in effect, empowering such an entity? 
    I prefer to choose whom to empower.  That includes my husband and my
    family and a few very close friends whom I respect.  I do not empower
    some nebulous entity.
    
    mdh
     
    
    

>Lets pretend.  You have a womans clothing store and you 
>    wish your customers to be *only* lesbians. 

lets not.  I fail to see how your hypothetical example has ANYTHING to do
with ANYTHING that I have said in this string. I won't play games with you
unless you can demonstrate some relevence to the games.

D!

    re .20
    
    
    right on!

    re .19
    thankyou Sara(h?)
    
    that was a very nice thing to say
    
    
    				herb

    
    RE -20
    
    "Before you plead for freedom you must agree to be enruled"
    
    Lyric by Ferron
    

    precisely