Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I have a feeling that the daughter is a bit wiser than the mother...
    to place ourselves in just one group is a very limited way of living
    and develop in this world... those limitations would make living a lot
    harsher and difficult, the new generation has a much wider idea of our
    possibilities and is not so ready "to fight" the other gender, but "to
    work with" the other gender that in my opinion, is the only way to live 
    and exist peacefully... why fight a determined group? everybody has
    something GOOD to offer, and everybody can learn from each other and
    benefit.  We are part of this world as a whole, and either we like it or
    not we have to share. 

    We, as parents seem to want our children to think and act as we do.
    Even though, we want them to grow as individuals. This typical conflict
    needs to be addressed.
    
    Jack
    

	Christine,

	Thanks for starting this note.

	I'm reading a book called "The Fullness of Life" by Arnaud
	Desjardins, in which many of these issues are addressed - is
    	it a "man's world" or a "woman's world", and where do each of
    	us, men and women, fit in any case.

	The author feels that there are male principles and female
	principles in the world, and that each of us, man or woman,
	possesses both. The fully realized person recognizes that
	and embraces both "sides". I'm condensing a lot here, but
	he describes the female principle as perceiving and 
	receiving, the world of the inner life; and the male principle 
    	as doing and acting, the world of the "outer life." (He's *not*
        BTW saying that men are active and women are passive.) 
        
	He also states that the male principle must, of necessity,
	arise *out of* the female principle, i.e. the male principle
	cannot function unless it first recognizes the female principle;
	if we do not perceive before we act, we will act without
	knowledge.

	The author further states that one major problem with *much*
	of the "feminist movement" is that women have taken "woman's
	liberation" to mean "acting like men", i.e. over-emphasizing
	the "action" or male principle, at the expense of the "receptive"
	or female principle. He feels that the female principle, by 
	and large, is looked down upon in modern society, by both men
	*and* women.  He encourages men and women to embrace the female
	principle, to value it, and to recognize that the male principle
	(i.e.acting, doing) has little value unless the person recognizes 
	that the male principle springs from the female principle.

	I think he's got a lot of good things to say. I personally agree
	quite strongly, that the inner life represented by "receiving,
	perceiving" is *not* highly valued in our society. And it's nice
        for me, personally, to find an author who spells that out in a
        way that I can identify with.

	Lynn
            

re .0, Christine-

>                                  The new generation feminist is fighting
>    to be a woman in a woman's and man's world, implying there is a place
>    for both, not just women who adapt to the traditional male way of
>    thinking (forgive the generalization) to advance, but to convince the
>    world that women have their worth as defined by themselves and not
>    others.

Yay!  I loved hearing of this way of putting it.  To me this is a very
good contribution to understanding what sorts of evolution feminism has
undergone as the past generation has struggled with definitions of who
we are, what we're interested in doing and showing, etc, etc.  Thanks
for sharing it.

DougO

    Sounds like Brian Hetrick's concept of "moving the target"!
    
    yay!
    
    -Jody
    

    "Who's world is it or do we share?"
    
    Is this asking about the world ideally or as it really is?  Ideally, it
    belongs to everyone.  Actually, it still belongs to white men although
    over the last 30 years some have been cornered into sharing a bit of it 
    either by law or by lust.  Mere "rightness" hasn't seemed to move too 
    many of them or else we wouldn't still be here asking these same questions 
    and turning to philosophy to console ourselves. 
    
    >everybody has something GOOD to offer, and everybody can learn from 
    >each other and benefit.  We are part of this world as a whole, and 
    >either we like it or not we have to share. 
    
    This is all well and good.  But the problem I have with such "answers"
    for women's questions is that we, (most of us, women-in-general), already 
    know this stuff *and* agree with it.  Unfortunately, those who are still 
    firmly entrenched in power, (non-women), may know it intellectually but 
    their actions betray that they don't quite believe it or don't want to 
    believe it or don't want to deal with it or something else along those 
    lines.  These are not things *women* need to hear, these are things *men* 
    need to hear and keep hearing until their laws, rules and traditions 
    reflect that they understand and accept it.  One wouldn't have calmed
    the restless slaves of the past by telling them to "understand" that
    everyone has something to offer, that there is some good in everyone,
    that they must "value the difference" of their masters, etc.  As
    slaves, they were already quite cognizant of the value of their masters
    as well as of themselves.  In other words, it wasn't *their*
    understanding of things that created the situation and it wasn't a
    "new" understanding on their part that changed things, either.  Until
    the masters were ready, and it wasn't "rightness" that made them ready,
    the slaves stayed slaves, period.  
    
    >The fully realized person recognizes that and embraces both "sides". 
    
    I agree 100% with the wonderful ideas in your note, Lynn.  Can you
    imagine, though, what it would take to get a "fully realized" candidate
    on the ballot?  If it's a she, she'd be brushed off as a lightweight,
    a sob-sister, a militant feminist, etc.  If it's a he, he'd be laughed
    out as a joke.  The inner circle of power is male and you don't get
    there by disagreeing with those already there.  Our politicians deal
    with "tough" questions and "complex" issues.  Something as simple as
    the above would be very suspect.  I'm reminded of the tribe whose males
    hid in the bushes and played pipes they'd made.  Women were never
    allowed to see the pipes because they were "sacred".  But a missionary
    came and showed the pipes to the women and the whole ritual, the whole
    tribe actually, fell apart.
    
    "Men's world" is created by them to be "mysterious" to us, and our
    modern traditions still reflect that in things like talking about the 
    "tough" questions and "serious" issues our politicians, (whom we still 
    consider to be male), deal with.  The simplicity in many of women's ideas 
    isn't seen as sublime, but rather as childish.  It proves we lack "real
    understanding".  And you can bet they "hide the pipes" to make sure we
    stay a bit unsure and they remain able to silence us by saying they know 
    something we don't.  If they were to admit that it's as simple as
    "everyone has something good to offer", they'd have a lot of explaining
    to do for the last some-odd centuries of their various and sundry
    oppressions.  Better that we're chided for our silliness and reminded
    that these issues are more "complex" than our understanding will allow.
    
    >if we do not perceive before we act, we will act without knowledge.

    But in a world that values action over careful thought, (the male
    principle over the female one), it isn't often considered a liability.  
    Maybe *you* know it is, and maybe *I* know it is, but so what?  As usual, 
    we're left behind, embracing our principles, (and sharing 50% of the
    miniscule part of life we've got here!), and valuing the differences 
    of the men who pretty much continue to leave us doing the dishes, typing 
    the memos, running the errands and planning and cooking the dinner. 
     
    I guess when it comes to equality, I'm completely fed up with
    philosophy - with "receiving and perceiving".  So we know the above. 
    Can we *use* that knowledge to improve the quality of women's
    lives?  Simply informing men of this is useless, however correct the
    message is, however "properly" it's presented to them, (correct tone of
    voice, no direct stares, gentle language and lots of please and thank
    yous).  They'll just yes you to death and go on hiring the less qualified 
    male and/or paying him more.  Saying it twice is dangerous and more than 
    that is downright deadly.  Once you're labeled "strident", (and they get 
    to make that call, of course), you've given them carte blanche to ignore
    your words or worse, insult you which warns all your sisters within
    earshot.
    
    So now what?  Do we just keep telling each other these things over and
    over?  Keeping women in futile pursuits like this at least keeps us busy 
    and quiet for awhile.  Can you imagine men spending over 30 years
    discussing among themselves something like how to get women to cook for 
    them and remaining unsuccessful but ever hopeful and ready to continue 
    for another 30 years?  Heck, they'd just make a law and be done with it
    in less than a year!  This endless talking, (repetition, actually), feels 
    like an admission of powerlessness to me.  One of our "fluffiest" magazines
    is lecturing us about a serious human issue we already know, understand, 
    agree with and would like to see put into action.  I guess you won't
    see the same article in Playboy.  And even if you did, I'm sure it
    would be missed among all the other articles men buy the rag for - the
    ones that build them up and tell them everything's ok because they are
    men and the women, (happy women who please men and therefore get paid
    well), are all made up and waiting!
                          
    Sandy Ciccolini

    to .6
    Oh Sandy, I've read your answer and it is so complicated that I hate to
    see the world "that complicated"... may be I am a 'weird' person who
    enjoys being alive and enjoys everything, men as well as women and
    their concerns... the world is great! specially its creatures, men and
    women alike! I love them all.  Relax, enjoy live and have fun! Rgds,
    Ana
    

    The world doesn't belong to anyone.  Men stole it from Nature.  Having
    said this, I will admit that in terms of human relationships, it's a
    men's world.
    
    Being a writer in the ULTRIX world, I come up against a continual
    stream of operating-system chauvinism:  "VMS is better!"  "ULTRIX is
    better!"  Well, the truth is that neither is better.  They're
    different, and each serves some particular set of needs better than the
    other.  Digital is a better, stronger company because both systems
    exist.
    
    Men and women are like VMS and ULTRIX.  Each sex has its strengths and
    its weaknesses.  The world is a better place because there are two
    sexes, and we'd all be a lot better off if we saw the other sex as a
    complementary entity instead of a conflicting one.
    
    -d

    Perhaps the title I used was misleading, couldn't come up[ with a
    good one.  I'm really more interested in people's perceptions of
    the evolution of feminism?  Was it harder for our mothers?  Did
    they try to become equal by becomming more like men?  Is our generation
    really trying to make all people see women as the other half of the
    human race, with merit based soley on our existance rather than any
    inclination we may have to fit into the male scheme of things?  Is 
    there room for women to exist as women in order to be heard, or must
    we still act as do men to be recognized and is this what feminisim
    is about?  I don't think I'm expressing this well.  If I think of
    it,, I'll bring the article in tomorrow and post the part that caught
    my attention.
    
    Christine

    to .9
    Imitations never amount to anything compared with the real stuff!
    Women are feminine, and real, and loose the most important part when they
    try to imitate something else (that may not amount to the same level
    for that matter).  Women have sensitiveness, intuition, endurance,
    love, and many more things that are not so easily found in men and...
    that gets lost when we try to be like men... for what? where is the
    rationale that we must imitate men? why? (I wound't change myself for
    any man) am very happy with my gender and my accomplishments that for
    some, are plenty; for some, little; for some others, none, but for me?
    I love the way IT IS, as I don't have to FIGHT and STRUGGLE for a
    single thing! I love and admire good people, intelligent ones,
    regardless sex, many are men, (great) and many are women... (great)
    still many are kids, smart as a whip... (God bless them too).
    

    Without reading any of the replies thus far, I feel the need to point
    out that the world faced by the mother and the world faced by the
    daughter are/were quite different.  Hence, the methods of attaining a
    desired goal [say, doing work that _she_ loves and values] are/were,
    perforce, different.
    
    There are always trade-offs to be made.  When I went away to
    engineering school there were precious few female engineering students
    at the university I attended.  My peers were male; my competition for
    classes, projects and summer placements were male; etc.  While being of
    the female persuasion was a valued commodity; it was not an attribute
    that was _remotely_ valued in my role as an engineering student ... in
    fact, I was viewed with the skepticism that might be reserved for a
    tree-sloth trying to make it as a penguin.  While I never endeavoured
    to be 'one of the boys', it was important to my success that I emulate
    male communication styles [only not so much that I'd be labelled
    bitchy] and to put forth my arguments and ideas in the male idiom.
    
    It was a stretch and a challenge that I met with mixed results. I
    wasn't always comfortable; and, very often, I felt that my male peers
    were brain-dead for not grasping what I felt was intuitive [no doubt
    they often felt the same about me].  Once I had _proved_ that strength
    of materials and fluid dynamics weren't ancient-Croatian-from-Mars that
    I'd learned to parrot cleverly; I gained an acceptance and was able to
    share my own feminine experience of these everyday disciplines.
    
    I desparately wanted a career 'in a man's field' and I would not have
    been allowed to participate fully if I had not made this trade-off. It
    was important that I not show 'the weak underbelly' of my womanhood.
    
    Because Rick attended grad school there, I spent an extra 3 years
    working at the university.  There'd been a gradual shift in the
    perception, presence, and treatment of women in the undergraduate
    engineering disciplines. Women in the college of engineering were
    perceived more as engineering students, rather than _female engineering
    students_, by the faculty and many of their peers.  As their numbers
    became greater, it became more important for their male peers to
    come to grips with the female idiom.  The effort to communicate was
    evolving into a two-way proposition.
    
    If in just seven years the head-set required to succeed as a [female]
    engineering student could change so visibly; it would appear intuitive
    that the changes occuring over a generation would be fairly
    significant.
    
      Annie

    The way I see it is that the mother started out in a 99.99% Man's
    World.  She shoved, and pushed, and elbowed (just like a man except
    we don't talk about them doing that :-) and made a space in that
    world.  In fact, she made a big enough space that it would hold more
    than one woman.
    
    The daughter started out in a 95% Man's World, because of the work
    of her mother and of women like her.  She now had the space to move
    around in, and do what seemed good to her.
    
    							Ann B.

    My Mom has two major statements which apply.
    
    1- "Cindi, it is possible that you perceive options that I can not.
    I only hope the world is really as you see it now."
    
    and 
    
    2- "You have it easier than I did.  You have a mother that fought
    in the trenches, to be able to hold you up to the light."
    
    Both apply here.  I have a slightly different perspective.
    In my world blacks can go to "white" hospitals if they have
    predomenantly "white" afflictions such as cleft palate.
    My mother could not.
    
    By the time I could investigate the feminist cause she had already
    hit the New York Times for admitting that she had been a battered
    wife.  She had already marched the first marches.
    She did not have someone before her.
    
    By the time I have a child, If life goes that way for me, and I
    should loose my husband, there are daycare center concepts for
    single Moms that I could use.
    She did not have that option.
    
    The shelters for battered women are still needed.  Women are still
    not getting the same pay for the same work.  But when I shoot for
    these things, I will not have to be the first... and as long as
    got allows her to live... I can have her wisdom, whispered in my
    ear.
    
    Advantage, for the newer generation,
    Cindi

    
    Christine!
    
    Sounds like a very good book!  I agree wholeheartedly.  Why would I
    want to replace one kind of one-sideness with another?
    
    For a long time, if anyone asked if I was a feminist, I would reply
    that I was a humanist(in-process).  Not being able, frequently,
    at expressing myself, I look forward to reading this book.
    
    Another, similar view is expressed in the book, the Chalice and the
    Blade, which basically states we started out as a species in a
    partnership society (doesn't that have a nice sound?!) and got
    into dominator societies along the way.  I found it to be great reading
    and really refreshing.  The answer is in all of us, togerther, not us
    vs them.
    
    Jam