Take Our Daughters to Work Day
Dreamy Duskywing
: (I'm not sure this makes a difference, but my company is a still
: quite small software startup. The only women in the company are
: the HR person, the receptionist, the tech writers (us), two of the
: marketing department (including the manager again), and the QA
: team (but not the manager).[1] Could we have a more traditional
: division of labor?)
Hard to tell based just on that... what jobs do the men have?
Claudia
--
If I were to combine your blood, toes, and hair, it might not be
you, but it would be enough for my basic desires.
-- The Surrealist Compliment Generator,
http://pharmdec.wustl.edu/cgi-bin/jardin_scripts/SCG
--
Soc.women.lesbian-and-bi is a moderated newsgroup. The moderation policy
and FAQ are available at <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~wjfraser/swlab/>.
Questions and concerns should be emailed to the moderators at
<swlab-...@panix.com>.
Paula Cobb
>My company has never bothered celebrating Take Our Daughters
>to Work Day before this year, when my boss and I decided that
>we should start the tradition. So, I'm curious to know from
>those of you that work places that celebrate it, what does your
>company do for it? And do you also invite sons (and if so why)?
Somewhat similar/somewhat not-at-all similar:
At the small company (~35 people) where I was last, we had a half-day when
people could bring their children and/or other relatives to work. Half day
seemed good, can't imagine how we would have entertained anyone full day.
We had little programs set up where they could see different things going on
around the office, log into the web, send an email, meet each other, listen
to our guru speak, as well as hang out with their employee person for a
while.
We broadened the invitation from just "daughters/sons" because a bunch of
people (especially the support staff) had spouses/parents at home who
generally had no clue what went on in office buildings downtown, so this was
to increase that understanding in people's home lives. But broadening the
definition to "families" also meant that people could bring their 8 and 12
year old younger sisters/etc, so the inspirational "you too could someday be
a corporate tool" message went to a broader pool of young women as well.
--
pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu
Cambridge, MA
Chris Waigl
>We broadened the invitation from just "daughters/sons" because a bunch of
>people (especially the support staff) had spouses/parents at home who
>generally had no clue what went on in office buildings downtown, so this was
>to increase that understanding in people's home lives. But broadening the
>definition to "families" also meant that people could bring their 8 and 12
>year old younger sisters/etc, so the inspirational "you too could someday be
>a corporate tool" message went to a broader pool of young women as well.
Don't get me wrong -- and perhaps I'm not understanding you clearly
enough, and you were alreading hinting at the same point --, but
I have a hard time understanding your "corporate tool" remark.
I wonder how the "meeage" is received by the young women in question.
Or is it that you think that in a (like in your case)
pretendedly gender-neutral setting this kind of institution is
counter-productive?
Chris, not_mod
--
"the infuriated tigress broke loose
and utterly ate up the unfortunate fir forest"
-- Mark Twain, _The_awful_German_language_
QueerPGH
>From: il...@mtcc.com (that bitch)
>Date: 3/23/99 5:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1.2ac...@panix.com>
>
>My company has never bothered celebrating Take Our Daughters
>to Work Day before this year, when my boss and I decided that
>we should start the tradition. So, I'm curious to know from
>those of you that work places that celebrate it, what does your
>company do for it? And do you also invite sons (and if so why)?
My exhusband is a construction inspector and took our daughter to work a couple
of years ago. She got to climb to the top of a new span of bridge being built
and was allowed to write her name on the beam of steel for posterity.
Yep, we do take your daughter to work day. I was working from home at the
time, so the children were at work with me often.
<| ~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |>
QueerPGH
http://www.QueerPittsburgh.com
[Coming soon to a web near you]
Paula Cobb
>"Paula Cobb" <pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu> écrivit:
>>We broadened the invitation from just "daughters/sons" because a bunch of
>>people (especially the support staff) had spouses/parents at home who
>>generally had no clue what went on in office buildings downtown, so this
was
>>to increase that understanding in people's home lives. But broadening the
>>definition to "families" also meant that people could bring their 8 and 12
>>year old younger sisters/etc, so the inspirational "you too could someday
be
>>a corporate tool" message went to a broader pool of young women as well.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- and perhaps I'm not understanding you clearly
>enough, and you were alreading hinting at the same point --, but
>I have a hard time understanding your "corporate tool" remark.
>I wonder how the "meeage" is received by the young women in question.
>Or is it that you think that in a (like in your case)
>pretendedly gender-neutral setting this kind of institution is
>counter-productive?
Not sure that I fully understand your question, but you can replace "be a
corporate tool" with "work in a corporation" in my comment above. I
sometimes flip that phrase around carelessly. And since I do think that
visiting an office (or any place/situation) does help people to imagine
themselves in similar settings/roles later on, and then to make the
decisions to get there, I shouldn't have introduced sarcasm into it.
--
pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu
Cambridge, MA
zil333
<snipped substance>
Scuse me but I haven't seen you before, and being that I'm QueerPGH
too, in a manner of speaking, I was wondering if you'd say a little
more about yourself.
I've been around SWLAB for a couple of years, but I lurk for long
periods when I get very busy. I'm 40, and in my current relationship
for 4 years. We're raising her 4 year old niece, which has made a lot
of difference in free time and a lot of other things. I'm a family
law attorney and Florence is a social worker, working for a job
training program, and finishing her degree this year.
We were talking about having lunch or coffee or something. Or Jeliza
and I were. Been busy again. I'm sure you'd be welcome. Let me know
what's good.
Zil
QueerPGH
>From: flo...@nauticom.net (zil333)
>Date: 3/23/99 9:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1.|8kgy2{0...@panix.com>
>
>On 23 Mar 1999 20:27:48 -0500, quee...@aol.com (QueerPGH) wrote:
>
><snipped substance>
>
>Scuse me but I haven't seen you before, and being that I'm QueerPGH
>too, in a manner of speaking, I was wondering if you'd say a little
>more about yourself.
>
>I've been around SWLAB for a couple of years, but I lurk for long
>periods when I get very busy. I'm 40, and in my current relationship
>for 4 years. We're raising her 4 year old niece, which has made a lot
>of difference in free time and a lot of other things. I'm a family
>law attorney and Florence is a social worker, working for a job
>training program, and finishing her degree this year.
>
>We were talking about having lunch or coffee or something. Or Jeliza
>and I were. Been busy again. I'm sure you'd be welcome. Let me know
>what's good.
>
>Zi
Hi Zil,
I've been around PGH for about three years, having moved here from VA. I work
for UPMC and play around with development of pro bono web sites on the side. I
made it to OUTRageous bingo last time they have it (whoo...all the wimmins!)
and am looking into Thursday Night Live (an educational/professional group of
G/L/B/T people). I've been with my partner for three years (hmmm...wonder what
brought me to PA?). I'm 43, have three kids (two in VA and one in AZ), and am
at a really good point in my life for enjoying pretty much everything.
I've been lurking for a while. It was suggested I do that in order to get the
feel of the newsgroup before I post. I'm dipping my toe in the posting water
from time to time now. Nice to meet you!
<| ~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |>
QueerPGH
http://www.QueerPittsburgh.com
[Coming soon to a web near you]
misfit
>
>il...@mtcc.com (that bitch) wrote:
>
>>My company has never bothered celebrating Take Our Daughters
>>to Work Day before this year, when my boss and I decided that
>>we should start the tradition. So, I'm curious to know from
>>those of you that work places that celebrate it, what does your
>>company do for it? And do you also invite sons (and if so why)?
>
>guess, but why not have the damn thing in the summer?
The IBM site where I work holds its "Take Your Children To Work
Day" in the summertime, for that very reason.
Ilona, all we do here is demo high-tech snazzy stuff and have a
meeting with free food for the kids. It has never been terribly
educational, but my daughter has always enjoyed it.
Peggy Fieland
>My company has never bothered celebrating Take Our Daughters
>to Work Day before this year, when my boss and I decided that
>we should start the tradition. So, I'm curious to know from
>those of you that work places that celebrate it, what does your
>company do for it? And do you also invite sons (and if so why)?
My company celebrates it as "take your children to work", I think because
they view inviting just girls as descriminatory. In any case, they
make a pretty big deal of it, with special activities for the
kids.
Peggy
Diana Trent
<1.ek9iy2/r...@panix.com>:
>
>My company celebrates it as "take your children to work", I think because
>they view inviting just girls as descriminatory.
Well, it IS discriminatory to single out
just daughters (or sons) for this treatment.
How do you feel about "Father-son" Little
League events?
Chris Waigl
> Well, it IS discriminatory to single out
>just daughters (or sons) for this treatment.
>How do you feel about "Father-son" Little
>League events?
It is nearly impossible to use the term "discrimination" in
a neutral way -- just meaning "making a difference" that is.
If what you say is not an attemt of doing just that, I wonder
how you can possibly argument your idealizing symmetric view.
Chris, not_mod
--
Mais ce n'est pas parce qu'un humain bêle d'amour
qu'il en devient un vrai mouton. (_Le féminin et le sacré_)
Beth Linker
: Please. Please someone tell me that this post is just a horrid figment
: of my imagination so I don't have to waste my time writing a scathing reply.
What post? I didn't see any post. Maybe you got glitter makeup flakes in
your eye and they distorted your vision so you thought you saw a post.
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
Melinda Shore
> Well, it IS discriminatory to single out
>just daughters (or sons) for this treatment.
>How do you feel about "Father-son" Little
>League events?
It helps me recognize that there's an upside to carjackings.
--
Melinda Shore - Cayuga Whine Trail - sh...@panix.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
Paula Cobb
>In article <1.1crjy2?^1...@panix.com>, "Paula Cobb" <pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu>
wrote:
>>Johannah Bradley wrote in message <1.*ukjy...@panix.com>...
>>>We don't have a father-son anything. Nor a mother-daughter thing. And if
>>>you bother to think about, such things not only privilege the married,
>>>het world; they are also classist as hell. I guess there is no shift work
>>>in the land of father-son little league events.
>>
>>Isn't pretty much anything that's got a schedule a conflict with swing
>>shifts?
>
>You're right.
>We should all be corporate tools instead.
Actually I hadn't suggested that.
--
pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu
Cambridge, MA
Alek Quinn
>
> In article <1.1crjy2?^1...@panix.com>, "Paula Cobb" <pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu> wrote:
> >Isn't pretty much anything that's got a schedule a conflict with swing
> >shifts?
>
> You're right.
> We should all be corporate tools instead.
right after school which is still part of the corporate tool work day.
Alek
Beth Linker
: In article <1.1crjy2?^1...@panix.com>, "Paula Cobb" <pc...@mba2000.hbs.edu> wrote:
:>Isn't pretty much anything that's got a schedule a conflict with swing
:>shifts?
: You're right.
: We should all be corporate tools instead.
Pretty much anything (scheduled or otherwise) conflicts with a corporate
tool schedule, so I don't see how that would help.
-Beth, wondering if it's time to split the group into
soc.tools.lesbian-and-bi.corporate and soc.tools.lesbian-and-bi.power
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
Ali
Johannah Bradley <jbra...@wavegate.com> wrote in article
<1.mru...@panix.com>...
[...]
> Not if you take shift work into account and schedule some games for
> non-swing shift times. We're trying that in the schools this year
> and will do so in the little league as well.
When DAG and yourself join the tribe, would you give some attention to the
kids' hockey club? I am trying to convince them that the juniors should
train on the same night (any night!) rather than U/9 Tuesday, U/13
Wednesday, and U/11 Thursday. Then the U/13 plays on Friday night, and the
U/9 and U/11 on Saturday morning - usually at different locations, at the
same time. At least Kez is not playing this year - this gives me two whole
days that don't have hockey on them - whoopee! (Can you tell I don't like
the game?)
Unless, of course, you get roped into coaching or scoring, in which case
I'll just wave you all goodbye at the door :)
ali
Alek Quinn
> -Beth, wondering if it's time to split the group into
> soc.tools.lesbian-and-bi.corporate and soc.tools.lesbian-and-bi.power
electric screwdriver or a handdrill that I could borrow? I'm having the
worst time hanging some blinds. I'll even let you supervisor, since
some people think that Alek + power tools = scariness.
Alek
DrumrCourt
>just daughters (or sons) for this treatment.
>How do you feel about "Father-son" Little
>League events?
My father played in a softball league for work and occassionally they
would bring their "kids" to play too. I put that in quotes because it was
pretty much an unspoken rule that "kids" meant sons. I had played little
league for 5 years, which my Dad didn't have a problem with to my knowledge,
but he would always give me the "Sorry hon, it's just for the boys" response
whenever I would ask him if I could play with his work league. So he would
take my brother instead, who btw can't play for shit. But I honestly think he
would have been embarrassed to take me....
courtney
Beth Linker
: In article <1.luv...@panix.com>, "Ali " <a...@onthe.net.au> wrote:
:>
:>Unless, of course, you get roped into coaching or scoring,
: So now Johannah's scoring involves using rope??
It's fun to score with rope! I mean, ummm...nevermind.
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
--
Diana Trent
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On 28 Mar 1999, Diana Trent wrote:
>> Well, it IS discriminatory to single out
>> just daughters (or sons) for this treatment.
>> How do you feel about "Father-son" Little
>> League events?
>
>Gag me. I assume this is a newbie with an equal-playing field argument or
>have I missed her previous deathless prose?
>
Isn't "equal playing fields" what equality is all about?
T.Smith
> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
> is acceptable. The difference between Little
> league games and taking daughters to work is
> one of degree, not kind.
Unless you are prepared to argue that there exists in society a
level playing field for boys and girls (and men and women), this
statement is simply absurd.
Think of it this way: each side of a scale holds a bunch of marbles,
one side for boys the other side for girls. The marbles represent
opportunity, validation, encouragement, resources, etc. -- all
the goodies that are doled out in society. Now, unless you are
living in some parallel universe, it ought to be obvious that there
a more marbles on the boys' side of the scale than the girls' side,
making the scale tip toward the boys side, where it will remain if
you insist that we must add a marble to the boys' side every time
we add a marble to the girls' side. The girls' side has some catching
up to do, so why is it bad to create some opportunities for specifically
for girls?
--Terri
Atara Stein
May I please interject a really stupid question and ask what the date of
Take Our Daughters to Work Day is this year? In April right? I'm having
major life crises to dealwith, so my memory of dates is rather shot.
TIA,
atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"What I just said is the fundamental, end-all, final,
not-subject-to-opinion absolute truth depending on where you're
standing."--Einstein in Steve Martin's _Picasso at the Lapin Agile_
Diana Trent
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
>Diana Trent wrote:
>
>> Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in <1.6+tky2?$8...@panix.com>:
>>
>> That is, providing girls
>> >with a day "at work" is not the same as having all-male Little League
>> >events.
>>
>> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
>> is acceptable. The difference between Little
>> league games and taking daughters to work is
>> one of degree, not kind.
>
>"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
>are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
>cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were no
>"girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
>were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
>stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
>repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
could elaborate on this.
>
>Perhaps =today= there is less of a need (less, but certainly not
>non-existent) for that sort of "affirmative action" in child-rearing,
>but I happen to think that the correct emphasis =still= needs to be
>on teaching our daughters that they have just as valid a place in the
>workforce as do our sons.
Given the above, what would be your objection to
gender-neutral "take your CHILDREN to work day"?
Don't both genders benefits from an early exposure
to the work environment? Why reinforce the stereotype
that work is a novelty for women?
Men don't seem to have a problem
>being raised to believe that the workplace is their own private
>little "No Girls Aloud" playground.
>
What workplaces are "mens' private playground?
Even the military is populated with women. If
there is a men's only work environment, I haven't
encountered it yet.
>We used to have this discussion over in soc.women and soc.feminism
>about "Take Back The Night" being a predominantly women-centered
>event, by and for women.
"Take back the night" had some pretty heavy
censorship and control issues that probably
don't need to be addressed here.
Dianne Millen
>
> What workplaces are "mens' private playground?
> Even the military is populated with women. If
> there is a men's only work environment, I haven't
> encountered it yet.
I don't think that the mere presence of women
in the workplace makes that environment equitable.
Almost every place I have ever worked, in a
wide variety of fields and locations, has
incorporated some form of differential treatment
of male and female workers e.g. assuming female
employees are secretaries, asking female
employees to make coffee even when they are relatively
senior, making comments about female workers'
appearance or commitment.
By the use of language (referring to female
secretaries as' the girls' regardless of their
age and experience, whereas even junior male
employees are 'men') and a host of other subtle
indicators, workplaces are subject to gendered
politics in subtle and less subtle ways. Counting
employees is not really the point.
Dianne
--
"I'm a big fan of discrimination against the stupid."
wmacp...@geocities.com on alt.tv.homicide
Angst Girl
> Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in <1.&z?ky2...@panix.com>:
>
> >X-No-Archive: YES
> >
> >Diana Trent wrote:
> >
> >> Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in <1.6+tky2?$8...@panix.com>:
> >>
> >> That is, providing girls
> >> >with a day "at work" is not the same as having all-male Little League
> >> >events.
> >>
> >> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
> >> is acceptable. The difference between Little
> >> league games and taking daughters to work is
> >> one of degree, not kind.
> >
> >"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
> >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
> >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were no
> >"girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
> >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
> >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
> >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
>
>
> I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
> time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
> could elaborate on this.
Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers and
daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters together
with anyone?
>
>
> >
> >Perhaps =today= there is less of a need (less, but certainly not
> >non-existent) for that sort of "affirmative action" in child-rearing,
> >but I happen to think that the correct emphasis =still= needs to be
> >on teaching our daughters that they have just as valid a place in the
> >workforce as do our sons.
>
>
> Given the above, what would be your objection to
> gender-neutral "take your CHILDREN to work day"?
> Don't both genders benefits from an early exposure
> to the work environment? Why reinforce the stereotype
> that work is a novelty for women?
<hears the sound of the whoosh>
I didn't know that showing girls and young women what their parents do all
day, every day was a novelty.
Again, making all things "equal" keeps the ones in power (in this case
men), in power and keeps those without power (in this case, women), without
power. Equity is balancing this out. Tipping the scales more towards the
equal position instead of adding an equal amount of marble to both sides.
Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>
>
> Men don't seem to have a problem
> >being raised to believe that the workplace is their own private
> >little "No Girls Aloud" playground.
> >
>
> What workplaces are "mens' private playground?
> Even the military is populated with women. If
> there is a men's only work environment, I haven't
> encountered it yet.
How many female CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are there? How many men?
How many female CEO's are there, period? Last time I checked women still
made only 73 cents for every dollar men make for equal work.
>
>
>
>
> >We used to have this discussion over in soc.women and soc.feminism
> >about "Take Back The Night" being a predominantly women-centered
> >event, by and for women.
>
>
> "Take back the night" had some pretty heavy
> censorship and control issues that probably
> don't need to be addressed here.
Oh puuuuuuulease!
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
Barb Strom
: Diana Trent wrote:
:> What workplaces are "mens' private playground? Even the military is
:> populated with women. If there is a men's only work environment, I
:> haven't encountered it yet.
There are auto body shops where I come from where there are no women's
bathrooms on the premises. My sister was the first woman they ever hired,
and she had to drive to the nearest gas station and use theirs.
: You're lucky. There are also workplace that do have women where the men
: -act- like it's their own private playground, thereby alienating all the
: women, making it hard for them to get promotions, and encouraging them to
: quit.
Like strewing Playboys all over the breakroom and driving the cars she
just finished painting into the sunlight so the paint would bubble and
crack, ruining her work.
Not to mention when I was working for a moving company; I wasn't an
administrative assistant or even a secretary - I was the boss's "gal."
Barb
debbie...@yahoo.com
>
> May I please interject a really stupid question and ask what the date of
> Take Our Daughters to Work Day is this year? In April right? I'm having
> major life crises to dealwith, so my memory of dates is rather shot.
Not a stupid question at all. Take Our Daughters To
Work Day is April 22. You can get more info at
http://www.ms.foundation.org/
-deb
"What if the hokey pokey *is* what it's all about?"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrea L. Vance
: Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in <1.&z?ky2...@panix.com>:
: >X-No-Archive: YES
: >
: >Diana Trent wrote:
: >
: >> Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in <1.6+tky2?$8...@panix.com>:
: >>
: >> That is, providing girls
: >> >with a day "at work" is not the same as having all-male Little League
: >> >events.
: >>
: >> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
: >> is acceptable. The difference between Little
: >> league games and taking daughters to work is
: >> one of degree, not kind.
: >
: >"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
: >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
: >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were no
: >"girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
: >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
: >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
: >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
: I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
: time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
: could elaborate on this.
I'll let someone else take this on...
: What workplaces are "mens' private playground?
: Even the military is populated with women. If
: there is a men's only work environment, I haven't
: encountered it yet.
Exactly. _you_ haven't encountered it yet. Now think - why would that be?
Hint: private playgrounds require invitations, and women aren't getting
many
I would hazard a guess that you haven't spent much time in the (US)
military, which is incredibly sexist, with plenty of "male only" jobs.
AFAIK, only the Isreali military offers any "real" attempt to put women
in true combat positions, but I'm foggy on the facts. Anyone?
And while women have begun to enjoy more success in previously
male-dominated fields in the US, you certainly can't say that about the
rest of the world. (in case you hadn't noticed, swlab boasts an
international readership)
Just thinking about jobs I've had, I can think of only one or two that
didn't involve some degree of male favoritism. Clearly, that's anecdotal
evidence, but I'm guessing that the experience has been somewhat
universal, after reading this ng for awhile.
Andrea
---
Dreamy Duskywing
: Just thinking about jobs I've had, I can think of only one or two that
: didn't involve some degree of male favoritism. Clearly, that's anecdotal
: evidence, but I'm guessing that the experience has been somewhat
^^^^^^^^^
Not the best phrasing perhaps.
My current job does not involve it, that I've been able to detect so far.
I can only really think of one job that did, out of 4 longer-term jobs.
(It's harder to gauge short-term temp assignments.) Granted, that's one
too many, but it stops short of universal.
Claudia
--
"Three million years in the future, the only suriving human
rebel is Kerr Avon, his only companions, a creature that evolved
from his pet thief, and a hologram of his dead shipmate, Gan.
Additional; it has been two months since we discovered the still
working ancient cloning facilities in deep space and Avon is
running out of Blake's to shoot." --John McKenzie
Atara Stein
> ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
> >
> > May I please interject a really stupid question and ask what the date of
> > Take Our Daughters to Work Day is this year? In April right? I'm having
> > major life crises to dealwith, so my memory of dates is rather shot.
>
> Not a stupid question at all. Take Our Daughters To
> Work Day is April 22. You can get more info at
> http://www.ms.foundation.org/
>
Thanks! I could have probably found out from my daughter's New Moon
magazine, if her room didn't look like a hurricane just hit it.
I would like to take her to work w/ me that day, but I really want to try
and find a bio or chem prof for her to meet, since she's hoping to be a
veterinarian.
atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"What I just said is the fundamental, end-all, final,
not-subject-to-opinion absolute truth depending on where you're
standing."--Einstein in Steve Martin's _Picasso at the Lapin Agile_
--
Andrea L. Vance
: Andrea L. Vance <ava...@gnu.uvm.edu> wrote:
: : Just thinking about jobs I've had, I can think of only one or two that
: : didn't involve some degree of male favoritism. Clearly, that's anecdotal
: : evidence, but I'm guessing that the experience has been somewhat
: : universal, after reading this ng for awhile. ^^^^^^^^
: ^^^^^^^^^
: Not the best phrasing perhaps.
Yeah, I agree with you - it wasn't the best phrasing. But I think when I
wrote that, I'd been up for 29 hours.
However, even in the social service sector, where I work now, I find that
there is still a male hierarchy. That's great that you haven't experienced
it - maybe things really are changing for the better.
: My current job does not involve it, that I've been able to detect so far.
: I can only really think of one job that did, out of 4 longer-term jobs.
: (It's harder to gauge short-term temp assignments.) Granted, that's one
: too many, but it stops short of universal.
: Claudia
--Andrea
Barb Strom
: Barb Strom wrote:
:> : Diana Trent wrote:
:> :> What workplaces are "mens' private playground? Even the military is
:> :> populated with women. If there is a men's only work environment, I
:> :> haven't encountered it yet.
:> bathrooms on the premises. My sister was the first woman they ever hired,
:> and she had to drive to the nearest gas station and use theirs.
: premises unsuitable for female habitation?
Both, pretty much.
Barb
Diana Trent
>In article <1.{?hly2t?6...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in <1.&z?ky2...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >X-No-Archive: YES
>> >
>> >Diana Trent wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in <1.6+tky2?$8...@panix.com>:
>> >>
>> >> That is, providing girls
>> >> >with a day "at work" is not the same as having all-male Little
>> >> >League events.
>> >>
>> >> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
>> >> is acceptable. The difference between Little
>> >> league games and taking daughters to work is
>> >> one of degree, not kind.
>> >
>> >"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
>> >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
>> >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were
>> >no "girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
>> >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
>> >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
>> >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
>>
>>
>> I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
>> time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
>> could elaborate on this.
>
>Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers and
>daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
>together with anyone?
Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
a double standard to me.
>> >
>> >Perhaps =today= there is less of a need (less, but certainly not
>> >non-existent) for that sort of "affirmative action" in child-rearing,
>> >but I happen to think that the correct emphasis =still= needs to be
>> >on teaching our daughters that they have just as valid a place in the
>> >workforce as do our sons.
>>
>>
>> Given the above, what would be your objection to
>> gender-neutral "take your CHILDREN to work day"?
>> Don't both genders benefits from an early exposure
>> to the work environment? Why reinforce the stereotype
>> that work is a novelty for women?
>
><hears the sound of the whoosh>
>I didn't know that showing girls and young women what their parents do
>all day, every day was a novelty.
>Again, making all things "equal" keeps the ones in power (in this case
>men), in power and keeps those without power (in this case, women),
>without power. Equity is balancing this out. Tipping the scales more
>towards the equal position instead of adding an equal amount of marble
>to both sides. Why is this so hard to understand?
>>
Doublethink is ALWAYS "hard to understand". Singling
out a gender for preferential treatment is either "equity"
or "discrimination", depending on the gender involved. Does
that about cover it?
Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
parents at work is "just for girls". Most children have
trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
frankly so do I.
> Last time I checked women still made only 73 cents for every
> dollar men make for equal work.
Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
Diana Trent
>philo soup wrote:
>: Diana Trent wrote:
>:> What workplaces are "mens' private playground? Even the military is
>:> populated with women. If there is a men's only work environment, I
>:> haven't encountered it yet.
>
>There are auto body shops where I come from where there are no women's
>bathrooms on the premises. My sister was the first woman they ever hired,
>and she had to drive to the nearest gas station and use theirs.
>
Personally I like the English method of single
toilet "bathrooms" (why do they call them that?
No one takes a bath in them, after all) that are
unisex. No label, no problem.
Diana Trent
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
> Today what althetic events there are for women often have
>"Lady" in front of the name -- "Lady Longhorns" being the local UT teams
>-- as if the women's teams were inferior and an afterthought to the
>men's teams.
>
I agree with you on that patronizing crap. Women in sports
do not need that "lady" or "girls" stuff. Do you remember the
Women's Basketball Association? Too bad it failed financially,
I thought having an alternative to the NBA was a good idea.
>Naming something "Father-Son Little League Picnic" or whatever is
>exclusionary in its language. It keeps women out of whatever it is that
>the boyz are doing.
Exclusion is exclusion is exclusion. It all stinks.
>
>> >Perhaps =today= there is less of a need (less, but certainly not
>> >non-existent) for that sort of "affirmative action" in child-rearing,
>> >but I happen to think that the correct emphasis =still= needs to be
>> >on teaching our daughters that they have just as valid a place in the
>> >workforce as do our sons.
>>
>> Given the above, what would be your objection to
>> gender-neutral "take your CHILDREN to work day"?
>> Don't both genders benefits from an early exposure
>> to the work environment? Why reinforce the stereotype
>> that work is a novelty for women?
>
>If the work-place had gender equality I'd have no problem at all. It
>doesn't. I am one of the most senior level programmers in my area and
>I am typically =the= woman in many meetings, and prior to a certain
>life altering event, there were =none= in those meetings. Whenever I
>speak to women about working for my employer I do everything I can to
>convince them to come here. But many women do seem to get frustrated
>with the environment anyway. This is =still= a male dominated
>profession. Presenting this environment in gender neutral terms isn't
>going to correct the current set of problems in my lifetime. We must
>both create an environment in which women can be respected as equals
>=and= encouraged to make up for years of systematic rejection.
>
>> Men don't seem to have a problem
>> >being raised to believe that the workplace is their own private
>> >little "No Girls Aloud" playground.
>> >
>>
>> What workplaces are "mens' private playground?
>> Even the military is populated with women. If
>> there is a men's only work environment, I haven't
>> encountered it yet.
>
>It isn't a question of "men only" in a workplace, but "men only"
>with a profession, professional level, job title and so forth. We
>have plenty of women in my building. Most are secretaries,
>administrative assistants and so forth. The number of women at
>any given level at my employer rapidly declines with grade. The
>only way I can see to correct this, in large part because there
>don't seem to be enough women to fill the higher ranks, is to
>expose this profession to a larger number of women -- and to enforce
>the notion that women should be advanced based on ability and not
>held back on the basis of lacking a penis.
>
You raise issue that is only marginally off topic.
I have seen more than a few male-dominated workplaces
where it the biggest block to new women is...the women
that already work there. Esp. at the managerial level.
It is like they don't mind male managers, but women
staffers all but refuse to work for a female manager.
Most counterproductive.
Al
snip, snip, snip and using annoying spacing):
:Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1./#jly2r^a...@panix.com>:
:>In article <1.{?hly2t?6...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
:>wrote:
:>> Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in <1.&z?ky2...@panix.com>:
:>> >
:>> >"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
:>> >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
:>> >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were
:>> >no "girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
:>> >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
:>> >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
:>> >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
:>>
:>> I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
:>> time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
:>> could elaborate on this.
:>
:>Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers and
:>daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
:>together with anyone?
:
: Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
: negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
: but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
: a double standard to me.
ob(sorta)threadtying: diana--go take a bath in the toilet. i don't know
where you've been living if you are not aware that women do _not_ have the
same status as men in the u.s. (i'm assuming here you're a u.s. poster
because you're posting from a u.s. account). next thing i know, you'll be
telling me we don't need women's schools or scholarships.
-al, baiting (errr...)
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
Angst Girl
> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1./#jly2r^a...@panix.com>:
>
> >Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers and
> >daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
> >together with anyone?
>
>
>
> Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
> negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
> but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
> a double standard to me.
Er, no. Pointing out that boys already have their *look what the grown-ups
do* opportunities is not "responding negatively". It's pointing out the
the boys already have enough marbles on their side of the scale.
> ><hears the sound of the whoosh>
> >I didn't know that showing girls and young women what their parents do
> >all day, every day was a novelty.
> >Again, making all things "equal" keeps the ones in power (in this case
> >men), in power and keeps those without power (in this case, women),
> >without power. Equity is balancing this out. Tipping the scales more
> >towards the equal position instead of adding an equal amount of marble
> >to both sides. Why is this so hard to understand?
> >>
>
>
> Doublethink is ALWAYS "hard to understand". Singling
> out a gender for preferential treatment is either "equity"
> or "discrimination", depending on the gender involved. Does
> that about cover it?
>
> Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
> parents at work is "just for girls". Most children have
> trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
> frankly so do I.
Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping and learn
how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead she has to go bake
cookies and earn merit badges for taking care of people. After all isn't
that all girls are good for? Cooking and taking care of people? Try
telling your daughter why she can't try out for the football team even
though she's a better player than most of her male peers. Try telling your
daughter that it's ok that the boys in school grab at her breasts and pull
up her skirt because after all, the principal says "boys will be boys, tell
her not to wear such tight shirts". Try telling your daughter why it's ok
that that she gets paid less than her male peers at her after school job
since she was only hired as a clerk and they were hired as stock boys even
though the manager won't hire girls for the stock boy position. Try
telling your daughter why it's ok that she keeps getting passed over for
promotions at work in favor of less qualified, younger men because after
all, she doesn't have a family to support and they do.
>
>
> > Last time I checked women still made only 73 cents for every
> > dollar men make for equal work.
>
>
>
> Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
> the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
> in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
>
Oh try most of em. Ever wonder what the difference between a coordinator
and a director are when both are essentially the same job? The men get
called the directors and the women get called the coordinators. Guess who
gets paid more? The EEOC is run by the government and last time I checked
the government was pretty damned sexist.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
--
Roving Reporter
>Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1./#jly2r^a...@panix.com>:
>>wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >Diana Trent wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Eliza Ross <el...@fcc.net> wrote in <1.6+tky2?$8...@panix.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> That is, providing girls
>>> >> >with a day "at work" is not the same as having all-male Little
>>> >> >League events.
>>> >>
>>> >> Gender favoritism is either wrong or it
>>> >> is acceptable. The difference between Little
>>> >> league games and taking daughters to work is
>>> >> one of degree, not kind.
>>> >
>>> >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
>>> >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were
>>> >no "girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
>>> >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
>>> >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
>>> >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
>>>
>>>
>>> I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
>>> time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
>>> could elaborate on this.
>>
>>daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
>>together with anyone?
> Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
> negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
> but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
> a double standard to me.
I think the point is we *don't* have these things, therefore things are
unequal.
>>> >Perhaps =today= there is less of a need (less, but certainly not
>>> >non-existent) for that sort of "affirmative action" in child-rearing,
>>> >but I happen to think that the correct emphasis =still= needs to be
>>> >on teaching our daughters that they have just as valid a place in the
>>> >workforce as do our sons.
>>> Given the above, what would be your objection to
>>> gender-neutral "take your CHILDREN to work day"?
>>> Don't both genders benefits from an early exposure
>>> to the work environment? Why reinforce the stereotype
>>> that work is a novelty for women?
>>
>><hears the sound of the whoosh>
>>I didn't know that showing girls and young women what their parents do
>>all day, every day was a novelty.
>>Again, making all things "equal" keeps the ones in power (in this case
>>men), in power and keeps those without power (in this case, women),
>>without power. Equity is balancing this out. Tipping the scales more
>>towards the equal position instead of adding an equal amount of marble
>>to both sides. Why is this so hard to understand?
> Doublethink is ALWAYS "hard to understand". Singling
> out a gender for preferential treatment is either "equity"
> or "discrimination", depending on the gender involved. Does
> that about cover it?
>
> Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
> parents at work is "just for girls". Most children have
> trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
> frankly so do I.
>> Last time I checked women still made only 73 cents for every
>> dollar men make for equal work.
> Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
> the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
> in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
Actually the problem is still a matter of separatism. I don't see too many
male secretaries even today...in fact, I can't remember the last time I saw
one. And if he's a waiter, he's working in a posh restaurant, if she's a
waitress, she's generally in a diner or something similar.
Give me a fucking break!
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
Roving Reporter
>
>>philo soup wrote:
>>: Diana Trent wrote:
>>:> populated with women. If there is a men's only work environment, I
>>:> haven't encountered it yet.
>>
>>bathrooms on the premises. My sister was the first woman they ever hired,
>>and she had to drive to the nearest gas station and use theirs.
>>
>
> Personally I like the English method of single
> toilet "bathrooms" (why do they call them that?
> No one takes a bath in them, after all) that are
> unisex. No label, no problem.
Men in the U.S. are fucking SLOBS, that's why.
Beth Linker
: I agree with you on that patronizing crap. Women in sports
: do not need that "lady" or "girls" stuff. Do you remember the
: Women's Basketball Association? Too bad it failed financially,
: I thought having an alternative to the NBA was a good idea.
The WNBA is still playing. The ABL, another women's pro league, ran out of
money this winter. Given all the coverage that the NCAA women's tournament
received this year, I think the WNBA's chances are actually pretty good.
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
--
T.Smith
> Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
> parents at work is "just for girls".
No one has said that parents should never, ever on any day of the
year take their sons to work. What at least some people have been
saying is that it makes sense to have a day which focusses on girls,
because girls have been and to some extent still are provided less
opportunity and encouragement in employment endeavors. There's
a long history of favoritism toward boys that still needs to
be balanced out.
> Most children have
> trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
> frankly so do I.
No kidding.
--Terri
Roving Reporter
>In article <1.-r6my2#?2...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
>> parents at work is "just for girls".
>
>No one has said that parents should never, ever on any day of the
>year take their sons to work. What at least some people have been
>saying is that it makes sense to have a day which focusses on girls,
>because girls have been and to some extent still are provided less
>opportunity and encouragement in employment endeavors. There's
>a long history of favoritism toward boys that still needs to
>be balanced out.
I think it'd be more productive to work on the day-to-day stuff, such as
encouraging girls to think about what they'd like to be when they grow up,
other than "housewife and mother." When I was a kid, that's all we were
expected to do, which I found rather dismal. My conclusion? I was going to
live in a house by myself and be an eccentric....because I didn't see any
alternatives.
(Actually, I think I've pretty much achieved the eccentric part, now I
just have to work on getting the house.)
There's also the matter of encouraging girls to learn things that will earn
them money, as opposed to preening adoration, and actually *practicing*
them.
>> Most children have
>> trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
>> frankly so do I.
Equity begins in the home, but you also have to counteract the part that
happens *outside* the home, as well as media portrayals. That's where the
extra effort comes in.
OTOH, maybe I'm out of touch with today, and these things are already being
done.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Ellen Evans
If you're going to go on with this "the playing field is equal because I
say it is equal" crap, at least learn how to edit the text you are
replying to.
Some people pay for their download time by the minute.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Diana Trent
>On 1 Apr 1999, Diana Trent wrote (for the umptieth time neglecting to
>snip, snip, snip and using annoying spacing):
>
>:Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1./#jly2r^a...@panix.com>:
>:>In article <1.{?hly2t?6...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
>:>wrote:
>:>> Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in <1.&z?ky2...@panix.com>:
>:>> >
>:>> >"Father-Son" little league events and "Take your daughter to work"
>:>> >are different both in degree and kind. The former reinforces the
>:>> >cultural stereotype that little league is a "boy's thing" (there were
>:>> >no "girls sports" when I played little league and soccer -- the teams
>:>> >were all boys) while the later tries to break down the cultural
>:>> >stereotype that a woman's place is not in the office. One is
>:>> >repressive in nature while the other is progressive.
>:>>
>:>> I had no idea that getting fathers to spend more
>:>> time with their sons was "repressive". Perhaps you
>:>> could elaborate on this.
>:>
>:>Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers and
>:>daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
>:>together with anyone?
>:
>: Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
>: negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
>: but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
>: a double standard to me.
>
>ob(sorta)threadtying: diana--go take a bath in the toilet. i don't know
>where you've been living if you are not aware that women do _not_ have the
>same status as men in the u.s. (i'm assuming here you're a u.s. poster
>because you're posting from a u.s. account). next thing i know, you'll be
>telling me we don't need women's schools or scholarships.
>
I thought the fight against single-sex schools
was over when the Citadel finally admitted women
and Texas Women's University finally admitted men.
In the same year, no less. Were they both wrong or
both right?
Diana Trent
>In article <1.-r6my2#?2...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1./#jly2r^a...@panix.com>:
>>
>
>> >Well where's the country-wide sports phenomena that brings fathers
>> >and daughters together? What do we have in place to bring daughters
>> >together with anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you, you just made my point. You reacted
>> negatively to gender exclusion that benefits boys,
>> but ENDORSE it when it comes to girls. Sounds like
>> a double standard to me.
>
>Er, no. Pointing out that boys already have their
> *look what the grown-ups do* opportunities is not
>"responding negatively". It's pointing out the
>the boys already have enough marbles on their side
>of the scale.
Are you seriously stating that boys are immune
from feelings of inadequecy and low self-esteem?
Are you claiming that seeing their parents at
would not be beneficial to BOTH girls and boys?
>
>>
>>
>> Doublethink is ALWAYS "hard to understand". Singling
>> out a gender for preferential treatment is either "equity"
>> or "discrimination", depending on the gender involved. Does
>> that about cover it?
>>
>> Try raising sons and explaining to them that seeing their
>> parents at work is "just for girls". Most children have
>> trouble understanding your concept of "equity", and
>> frankly so do I.
>
>Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping
>and learn how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead
>the has to go bake cookies and earn merit badges for taking care
>of people. After all isn't that all girls are good for? Cooking
>and taking care of people?
Has someone stopped you from taking your daughter
on camp-outs? And what does that have to do with
only daughters seeing their parent's work environment?
Try
>telling your daughter why she can't try out for the football team even
>though she's a better player than most of her male peers.
You are right, there are virtually no options for
girls to play football. Or box, for that matter. But
what how does that relate to a daughters-only holiday?
>> > Last time I checked women still made only 73 cents for every
>> > dollar men make for equal work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
>> the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
>> in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
>>
>Oh try most of em. Ever wonder what the difference between a
>coordinator and a director are when both are essentially the same job?
>The men get called the directors and the women get called the
>coordinators. Guess who gets paid more? The EEOC is run by the
>government and last time I checked the government was pretty damned
>sexist.
>
If the US government is too sexist for you,
perhaps you would have preferred the British
government under Margret Thatcher. I didn't.
Diana Trent
-gmy...@panix.com>:
>
>
>> Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
>> the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
>> in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
>
>Actually the problem is still a matter of separatism. I don't see too
>many male secretaries even today...in fact, I can't remember the last
>time I saw one. And if he's a waiter, he's working in a posh restaurant,
>if she's a waitress, she's generally in a diner or something similar.
>
>Give me a fucking break!
>
Even tho your examples are extreme hyperboles,
you have a point. There are too few male nurses
and secretaries, and too many female flight
attendents and receptionists. But aside from
denying people the jobs they want because they
are the "wrong" gender, I don't know what the
answer is. Any ideas?
Diana Trent
>>>
>>
>> Personally I like the English method of single
>> toilet "bathrooms" (why do they call them that?
>> No one takes a bath in them, after all) that are
>> unisex. No label, no problem.
>
>Men in the U.S. are fucking SLOBS, that's why.
I once had a job that included cleaning the
bathrooms at a movie theater. And let me tell
you, men have no monopoly on being slobs. I
could describe some of the things I found in
the womens' restrooms, but this is public forum,
you know.
Diana Trent
>In article <1.ns6...@panix.com>,
> Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> jafr...@my-dejanews.com wrote in <1.i3n...@panix.com>:
>> >Naming something "Father-Son Little League Picnic" or whatever is
>> >exclusionary in its language. It keeps women out of whatever it is
>> >that the boyz are doing.
>>
>> Exclusion is exclusion is exclusion. It all stinks.
>
>I learned about "exclusion" and "equality" thousands of years ago from a
>woman who made the point that if you hold back women (or blacks, or
>hispanics or ...) long enough, you =do= have to give women (or blacks,
>or hispanics or ...) an advantage until the playing field has been
>levelled a bit. The analogy she used was of women who'd been subjected
>to foot binding (It's Mark Ethan Smith, for those of you who read
>soc.women in the late 80's) suddenly being allowed to run foot races
>against men who'd never been so treated.
>
>"Take Your Daughter To Work" does that because fathers already take
>their son's to work and encourage them to be engineers. My ex-wife
>(Whom I love so dearly) was told by her father "You'd better get a good
>education because you're too ugly for any man to date you." Meaning, of
>course, that were she not ugly (and she isn't -- drop dead gorgeous with
>the most beautiful red hair I've ever seen (but I digress) ), she'd have
>a husband to take care of her and no need for that yucky college stuff.
>
I agree that sexism needs to addressed in the
home. But the response to exclusion should not
be more exclusion, but INclusion. It is not girls
that should be shown the realities of the workplace,
but children. All children. Children treated equals.
>> >It isn't a question of "men only" in a workplace, but "men only"
>> >with a profession, professional level, job title and so forth. We
>> >have plenty of women in my building. Most are secretaries,
>> >administrative assistants and so forth. The number of women at
>> >any given level at my employer rapidly declines with grade. The
>> >only way I can see to correct this, in large part because there
>> >don't seem to be enough women to fill the higher ranks, is to
>> >expose this profession to a larger number of women -- and to enforce
>> >the notion that women should be advanced based on ability and not
>> >held back on the basis of lacking a penis.
>> >
>>
>> You raise issue that is only marginally off topic.
>> I have seen more than a few male-dominated workplaces
>> where it the biggest block to new women is...the women
>> that already work there. Esp. at the managerial level.
>> It is like they don't mind male managers, but women
>> staffers all but refuse to work for a female manager.
>> Most counterproductive.
>
>I don't doubt that women can get co-opted into whatever mechanism
>there is which keeps more women out of the higher levels of
>management.
>
>Women lack the power, for the most part to crack the glass ceiling
>on their own, so about all that can be done is a rear-guard action
>against other women who might be vying for the same higher level
>position. I imagine that if the higher rungs on the career ladder
>weren't blocked by women beating their heads against the glass
>ceiling, fewer women would play those games. But that's just a
>guess and I reserve the right to be wrong.
>
>
You are right. Women should not treat other women
as threats. I once read an article by Betty Friedan
pointing out that until women are enlightened, men
will never be. Just a thought.
Ann Simonds
<dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Al <al...@barnard.edu> wrote in <1.rt7my2^-5...@panix.com>:
>>ob(sorta)threadtying: diana--go take a bath in the toilet. i don't know
>>where you've been living if you are not aware that women do _not_ have the
>>same status as men in the u.s. (i'm assuming here you're a u.s. poster
>>because you're posting from a u.s. account). next thing i know, you'll be
>>telling me we don't need women's schools or scholarships.
>>
>
>
> I thought the fight against single-sex schools
The topic, far as I can see, is women's schools,
specifically.
> was over when the Citadel finally admitted women
> and Texas Women's University finally admitted men.
> In the same year, no less. Were they both wrong or
> both right?
There are still women's schools out there. al even attends
one (as did I, however briefly). And the fight was about
federal monies going to sex discrimination, not the
philosophy of gender-specific education. Women's schools are
a very good thing, both as institutions and for some women.
hth,
- Ann
==
"Lesbians are great! Gimme more! Why? They don't
cause any trouble." -- Tommy O'Connor
Susan Davis
>
> The WNBA is still playing. The ABL, another women's pro league,
> ran out of money this winter. Given all the coverage that the NCAA
> women's tournament received this year, I think the WNBA's chances
> are actually pretty good.
Speaking of the WNBA, is there a source for *away* WNBA jerseys
anywhere? WNBA.com is only selling replica *home* jerseys for
a few specific players, and I really want to find an away one.
(Our martial arts school gives everyone a nickname. Mine is
"Phoenix.")
-- Sue --
(go Rockers!)
--
Susan Davis <s...@secant.com>
Secant Technologies * 4853 Galaxy Pkwy, Ste. S * Cleveland, OH 44128
Angst Girl
> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1.g6f...@panix.com>:
>
> >Er, no. Pointing out that boys already have their
> > *look what the grown-ups do* opportunities is not
> >"responding negatively". It's pointing out the
> >the boys already have enough marbles on their side
> >of the scale.
>
> Are you seriously stating that boys are immune
> from feelings of inadequecy and low self-esteem?
> Are you claiming that seeing their parents at
> would not be beneficial to BOTH girls and boys?
Where did I say anything about inadequecy or low self-esteem? What I
pointed out is that boys already have lots of opportunities laid out for
them. Why is one little day for girls so threatening to you? Did I, or
anyone for that matter, ever say boys should never be taken to see what
their parents do at work? The fact is that many men already do take their
sons to work to "see what daddy does". Why do you think so many sons go
into the same line of work as their fathers? It's what they know growing
up. It's what they feel comfortable with. I think you'd be hardpressed to
find more than a small sampling of daughters that follow in either parents
footsteps. Women are just not given that opportunity. Fathers rarely pull
favors to open doors for their daughters. OTOH for their sons, it a given.
> >
> >Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping
> >and learn how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead
> >the has to go bake cookies and earn merit badges for taking care
> >of people. After all isn't that all girls are good for? Cooking
> >and taking care of people?
>
>
>
> Has someone stopped you from taking your daughter
> on camp-outs? And what does that have to do with
> only daughters seeing their parent's work environment?
Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother can
take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look quite as
impressive as "eagle scout".
> Try
> >telling your daughter why she can't try out for the football team even
> >though she's a better player than most of her male peers.
>
> You are right, there are virtually no options for
> girls to play football. Or box, for that matter. But
> what how does that relate to a daughters-only holiday?
Equity. Say it with me now, eeeeqquiiiittty.
> >>
> >Oh try most of em. Ever wonder what the difference between a
> >coordinator and a director are when both are essentially the same job?
> >The men get called the directors and the women get called the
> >coordinators. Guess who gets paid more? The EEOC is run by the
> >government and last time I checked the government was pretty damned
> >sexist.
> >
> If the US government is too sexist for you,
> perhaps you would have preferred the British
> government under Margret Thatcher. I didn't.
I'm not even going to dignify this one. Look babe, I don't feel sorry for
you poor widdle boys because they have to go to school and the girls get to
go to work with their parents. Sorry. By the time they hit third grade
your sons will know that they have it all over girls as far as opportunity
and advantage. So will the girls. Which one is the bigger shame?
Also please learn how to snip and format your messages correctly. Some
women do pay by the minute. By not doing so you are being overtly rude to
this group.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
--
Beth Linker
: Speaking of the WNBA, is there a source for *away* WNBA jerseys
: anywhere? WNBA.com is only selling replica *home* jerseys for
: a few specific players, and I really want to find an away one.
: (Our martial arts school gives everyone a nickname. Mine is
: "Phoenix.")
Gerry Cosby, the sports uniform store in Madison Square Garden (and other
places, according to their rather basic web page at
http://members.aol.com/gcsports/home.htm) is likely to have them if they're
being sold.
-Beth, trying to remember if I saw any away jerseys while I was there today
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
Al
:Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> wrote in <1.k
:-gmy...@panix.com>:
:>(Diana wrote):
:>
:>> Name me one job that pays women less money for doing
:>> the same work. The EEOC cannot find any, and they are
:>> in the business of ferreting out this sort of thing.
:>
:>Actually the problem is still a matter of separatism. I don't see too
:>many male secretaries even today...in fact, I can't remember the last
:>time I saw one. And if he's a waiter, he's working in a posh restaurant,
:>if she's a waitress, she's generally in a diner or something similar.
: Even tho your examples are extreme hyperboles,
: you have a point. There are too few male nurses
: and secretaries, and too many female flight
: attendents and receptionists. But aside from
: denying people the jobs they want because they
: are the "wrong" gender, I don't know what the
: answer is. Any ideas?
*smacks forehead* yes, diana, the *only* way to rectify the current
situation where professions with the highest earnings and responsibility
are dominated by men, leaving women to work lower paying, subordinate
positions, would be to deny women those positions so that more men could
be hired for them. big hint: it might have something to do with
discrimination _all_ women face. (if not in your home--then at your place
of work, if not there, then at your school, if not even there--you've
nowhere to escape from popular culture). it seems that you are under the
impression that gender equality exists in contemporary american society.
or at least that there is way more of it than before. well, you can't
have more or less of equality. you either have it or you don't. the key
is not to deny anyone jobs, that's treating the symptom, not the cause.
the key is combatting ancient gender stereotypes that preclude us from
ever becoming anything more than a second-class citizen.
-al, who goes to a women's college but still hears stories of sexism among
the profs anyway (although most of the stories *do* come from across the
street (columbia u))
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
Roving Reporter
>In article <1.wm~my2n$a...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping
>> >and learn how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead
>> >the has to go bake cookies and earn merit badges for taking care
>> >of people. After all isn't that all girls are good for? Cooking
>> >and taking care of people?
>> Has someone stopped you from taking your daughter
>> on camp-outs? And what does that have to do with
>> only daughters seeing their parent's work environment?
>
>Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother can
>take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look quite as
>impressive as "eagle scout".
Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
kind of equivalent?
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Angst Girl
<Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 1999, Angst Girl wrote:
> >In article <1.wm~my2n$a...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> >> >Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping
> >> >and learn how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead
> >> >the has to go bake cookies and earn merit badges for taking care
> >> >of people. After all isn't that all girls are good for? Cooking
> >> >and taking care of people?
>
> >> Has someone stopped you from taking your daughter
> >> on camp-outs? And what does that have to do with
> >> only daughters seeing their parent's work environment?
> >
> >Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother can
> >take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look quite as
> >impressive as "eagle scout".
>
> Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
> kind of equivalent?
>
> --
> Therese Shellabarger
On a resume, somehow, "girl scout" doesn't quite hold the same weight as
"eagle scout". Additionally, it's rare that something like the girl scouts
or being a member of a sorority opens door for women in the business world.
OTOH boy scouts and fraternities open doors for men every day.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
--
Amanda Walker
> Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
> kind of equivalent?
That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Sure, they have
achievement awards of various sorts. But "eagle scout" is a business
credential, while a girl scouting award is a hobby. "Eagle scout" is
something a man can list on his resume and gain points for. Granted,
this is probably less and less of a factor as the man gets older, but
every little bit helps when you're young.
Amanda Walker
Diana Trent
If you have any concrete proposals beyond
"combatting ancient gender stereotypes" I
would like to see them.
Diana Trent
>In article <1.wm~my2n$a...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1.g6f...@panix.com>:
>>
>
>> >Er, no. Pointing out that boys already have their
>> > *look what the grown-ups do* opportunities is not
>> >"responding negatively". It's pointing out the
>> >the boys already have enough marbles on their side
>> >of the scale.
>>
>> Are you seriously stating that boys are immune
>> from feelings of inadequecy and low self-esteem?
>> Are you claiming that seeing their parents at
>> would not be beneficial to BOTH girls and boys?
>
>Where did I say anything about inadequecy or low self-esteem? What I
>pointed out is that boys already have lots of opportunities laid out for
>them. Why is one little day for girls so threatening to you? Did I, or
>anyone for that matter, ever say boys should never be taken to see what
>their parents do at work? The fact is that many men already do take
>their sons to work to "see what daddy does". Why do you think so many
>sons go into the same line of work as their fathers? It's what they
>know growing up. It's what they feel comfortable with. I think you'd
>be hardpressed to find more than a small sampling of daughters that
>follow in either parents footsteps. Women are just not given that
>opportunity. Fathers rarely pull favors to open doors for their
>daughters. OTOH for their sons, it a given.
>
>
I don't know where you are getting your information,
but I see a LOT more women taking their children to
work than men, simply because of a lack of child care
options if nothing else. If you have some proof that
men take sons to work more often than women take daughters
to work, do post it.
What is your objection to a "take your CHILDREN to work
day? If boys have already been taken to work - as you
claim - then another trip is not going to show them anything
new. Besides, the very name of the event would be a blow
for gender inclusion, not gender EXclusion.
>> >
>> >Try raising a daughter and telling her why she can't go camping
>> >and learn how to live off the land like her brothers, and instead
>> >the has to go bake cookies and earn merit badges for taking care
>> >of people. After all isn't that all girls are good for? Cooking
>> >and taking care of people?
>>
>>
>>
>> Has someone stopped you from taking your daughter
>> on camp-outs? And what does that have to do with
>> only daughters seeing their parent's work environment?
>
>Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother
>can take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look
>quite as impressive as "eagle scout".
>
You made the claim that girls are told they "can't go
camping" What girls are being told that, and by whom?
Diana Trent
>On 2 Apr 1999 22:54:09 -0500, Diana Trent
><dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Al <al...@barnard.edu> wrote in <1.rt7my2^-5...@panix.com>:
>
>>>ob(sorta)threadtying: diana--go take a bath in the toilet. i don't
>>>know where you've been living if you are not aware that women do _not_
>>>have the same status as men in the u.s. (i'm assuming here you're a
>>>u.s. poster because you're posting from a u.s. account). next thing i
>>>know, you'll be telling me we don't need women's schools or
>>>scholarships.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I thought the fight against single-sex schools
>
>The topic, far as I can see, is women's schools,
>specifically.
>
>> was over when the Citadel finally admitted women
>> and Texas Women's University finally admitted men.
>> In the same year, no less. Were they both wrong or
>> both right?
>
>There are still women's schools out there. al even attends
>one (as did I, however briefly). And the fight was about
>federal monies going to sex discrimination, not the
>philosophy of gender-specific education. Women's schools are
>a very good thing, both as institutions and for some women.
>
Personally, I think there is a place for single-sex
schools. They have a proven success record. But they
have to exist for both genders or not at all. Agreed?
Roving Reporter
>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> writes:
>> Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
>> kind of equivalent?
>
>That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Sure, they have
>achievement awards of various sorts. But "eagle scout" is a business
>credential, while a girl scouting award is a hobby. "Eagle scout" is
>something a man can list on his resume and gain points for. Granted,
>this is probably less and less of a factor as the man gets older, but
>every little bit helps when you're young.
Hmm. I sense a good PR opportunity, if someone can come up with a spiffy
name that would stand up there with the name "Eagle Scout" for girl scouts
who make the pinnacle. Any suggestions?
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Al
<snipped long er, discussion on gender imbalance in many professions>
:
: If you have any concrete proposals beyond
: would like to see them.
well, if you ask me, i think everything starts in school. so--more
education, both in schools and in the workplace, that promotes gender
equality. better, more effective procedures for reporting discrimination
(in terms of non-promotion, etc.) and harassment. better networking
between women. i'm just throwing those out of my head right now. really,
it's the entire society that must be reformed. you just don't get to
reform it by saying, "well, i don't have a clue on how to do it, so i'm
not going to bother."
-al
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
Ann Simonds
<dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Ann Simonds <al...@cwix.com> wrote in <1.4^~my...@panix.com>:
(snipping for length...)
>>There are still women's schools out there. al even attends
>>one (as did I, however briefly). And the fight was about
>>federal monies going to sex discrimination, not the
>>philosophy of gender-specific education. Women's schools are
>>a very good thing, both as institutions and for some women.
> Personally, I think there is a place for single-sex
> schools. They have a proven success record. But they
> have to exist for both genders or not at all. Agreed?
No. Not agreed. You're operating on your "level playing
field" again. Why do we need any more male-exclusive
institutions when (U.S.) society as a whole is structured to
serve to male privilege? On the other hand, because of this
pervasive structure, women's schools and colleges are good
things. Young women can learn among themselves, experience
competition, support, and achievement without the presence
of young men. There are numerous studies which document
declining achievement among girls as they rise through the
grades of high school and into college; anything to
counteract this is a good idea.
- Ann
==
"Lesbians are great! Gimme more! Why? They don't
cause any trouble." -- Tommy O'Connor
--
Ann Simonds
<Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1999, Amanda Walker wrote:
>>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> writes:
>>> Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
>>> kind of equivalent?
>>
>>That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Sure, they have
>>achievement awards of various sorts. But "eagle scout" is a business
>>credential, while a girl scouting award is a hobby. "Eagle scout" is
>>something a man can list on his resume and gain points for. Granted,
>>this is probably less and less of a factor as the man gets older, but
>>every little bit helps when you're young.
>
>Hmm. I sense a good PR opportunity, if someone can come up with a spiffy
>name that would stand up there with the name "Eagle Scout" for girl scouts
>who make the pinnacle. Any suggestions?
<rolling eyes> Right, all we need is a spiffy title that
would magically erase the dismissal of women's achievements.
Why didn't anyone ever think of that before?
The problem, Therese, is not there isn't a level of
achievement for women roughly equitable to Eagle Scout. The
problem is that if such an equivalent is presented, it is
not given equivalent weight by its audience, whether job
interviewer or whatever.
Ellen Evans
More full article quoting:
Please trim your text.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
--
Dreamy Duskywing
: On 3 Apr 1999 12:00:37 -0500, Diana Trent
: <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> Personally, I think there is a place for single-sex
:> schools. They have a proven success record. But they
:> have to exist for both genders or not at all. Agreed?
: No. Not agreed. You're operating on your "level playing
: field" again. Why do we need any more male-exclusive
: institutions when (U.S.) society as a whole is structured to
: serve to male privilege?
Because exclusion is not the only purpose of a single-sex school?
I agree that there are reasons relating to male privilege why
women's schools are good, but they're not the only reasons to
have single-sex schools.
Claudia
--
"Every day we slaughter our finest impulses. That is why we get a heart-ache
when we read those lines written by the hand of a master and recognize them
as our own, as the tender shoots which we stifled because we lacked the faith
to believe in our own powers, our own criterion of truth and beauty. Every
man, when he gets quiet, when he becomes desperately honest with himself, is
capable of uttering profound truths. We all derive from the same source.
There is no mystery about the origin of things. We are all part of creation,
all kings, all poets, all musicians; we have only to open up, to discover
what is already there." -- Henry Miller, Sexus
Angst Girl
> >Where did I say anything about inadequecy or low self-esteem? What I
> >pointed out is that boys already have lots of opportunities laid out for
> >them. Why is one little day for girls so threatening to you? Did I, or
> >anyone for that matter, ever say boys should never be taken to see what
> >their parents do at work? The fact is that many men already do take
> >their sons to work to "see what daddy does". Why do you think so many
> >sons go into the same line of work as their fathers? It's what they
> >know growing up. It's what they feel comfortable with. I think you'd
> >be hardpressed to find more than a small sampling of daughters that
> >follow in either parents footsteps. Women are just not given that
> >opportunity. Fathers rarely pull favors to open doors for their
> >daughters. OTOH for their sons, it a given.
> >
> >
>
> I don't know where you are getting your information,
> but I see a LOT more women taking their children to
> work than men, simply because of a lack of child care
> options if nothing else. If you have some proof that
> men take sons to work more often than women take daughters
> to work, do post it.
IMPE my brother went to work with my father pretty often, as did my male
cousins with their father. Somehow none of the girls were ever afforded
that opportunity. Proof, as in stats and such, you post your proff then
I'[ll waste my time finding some for you.
> What is your objection to a "take your CHILDREN to work
> day? If boys have already been taken to work - as you
> claim - then another trip is not going to show them anything
> new. Besides, the very name of the event would be a blow
> for gender inclusion, not gender EXclusion.
>
Hello? Earth to Diana. There does *not* exist an equal playing field for
girls and boys or for women and men. Why does one day celebrating girls
getting information of the workplace threaten you? How does it threaten
your son's already superior standing in society by nature of their being
born male?
> >Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother
> >can take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look
> >quite as impressive as "eagle scout".
> >
> You made the claim that girls are told they "can't go
> camping" What girls are being told that, and by whom?
>
Well AFAIK girls connot join the boy scouts. So yes, girls can go camping.
They cannot go in a fashion that is not only training them about the land
and environement but also providing them with resume building material for
which to boost their careers as they get older. Boys can. Where's the
gender inclusion? Why not change every father-son event into parent-child
events? Why not call the boy scouts the people scouts and let everyone
join? Why not open all sports teams to all sexes and require some equality
in gender representation? Why not require the military to allow women into
combat positions?
Diana, sorry, I'm not buying the "my poor sons" argument no matter how much
you try to derail the conversation. Boys already have the cards stacked in
their favor by nature of birth. Your sons already have superior standing
in society. One day of sitting in school while the girls get to join their
parents at work is not going to matter to them. It may, however, matter to
a few girls. That's the point.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
--
Ann Simonds
<cma...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Ann Simonds <al...@cwix.com> wrote:
>: On 3 Apr 1999 12:00:37 -0500, Diana Trent
>: <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:> Personally, I think there is a place for single-sex
>:> schools. They have a proven success record. But they
>:> have to exist for both genders or not at all. Agreed?
>
>: No. Not agreed. You're operating on your "level playing
>: field" again. Why do we need any more male-exclusive
>: institutions when (U.S.) society as a whole is structured to
>: serve to male privilege?
>
>Because exclusion is not the only purpose of a single-sex school?
>
>I agree that there are reasons relating to male privilege why
>women's schools are good, but they're not the only reasons to
>have single-sex schools.
So do I. I may not have made that as clear as I wanted to,
in the rest of my post. In women's schools, the focus is on
women's education, among other women. I did not intend to
posit their virtue entirely on exclusion of men.
- Ann
==
"Lesbians are great! Gimme more! Why? They don't
cause any trouble." -- Tommy O'Connor
--
Imperialist Running Pig
> You are right. Women should not treat other women
> as threats. I once read an article by Betty Friedan
> pointing out that until women are enlightened, men
> will never be. Just a thought.
For someone who's arguing as hard as you are for inclusion, I'm
surprised you don't see the exclusion in her statement.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ I got new glasses!
pig...@piglet.org \/ And so I'm see-sick.
Imperialist Running Pig
> .... There are too few male nurses
> and secretaries, and too many female flight
> attendents and receptionists. But aside from
> denying people the jobs they want because they
> are the "wrong" gender, I don't know what the
> answer is. Any ideas?
Hey, I know, let's all take our daughters to work, so they can imagine
fresh options for themselves!!
Ann Simonds
Running Pig) wrote:
>Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>, in article <1.&m~my2l^a...@panix.com>, dixit:
>> But aside from
>> denying people the jobs they want because they
>> are the "wrong" gender, I don't know what the
>> answer is. Any ideas?
>
>Hey, I know, let's all take our daughters to work, so they can imagine
>fresh options for themselves!!
Nah. -Way- too radical.
____
>Piglet \bi/ I got new glasses!
>pig...@piglet.org \/ And so I'm see-sick.
Yay! It's a whole new
world!
- Ann
==
"Lesbians are great! Gimme more! Why? They don't
cause any trouble." -- Tommy O'Connor
--
shannon salisbury
> In article <1.7tfny2}{4...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I don't know where you are getting your information,
> > but I see a LOT more women taking their children to
> > work than men, simply because of a lack of child care
> > options if nothing else. If you have some proof that
> > men take sons to work more often than women take daughters
> > to work, do post it.
> IMPE my brother went to work with my father pretty often, as did my male
> cousins with their father. Somehow none of the girls were ever afforded
> that opportunity. Proof, as in stats and such, you post your proff then
> I'[ll waste my time finding some for you.
This isn't to disagree with you, Jills, but my personal experience vearies
widely from yours. I went to work with my father all the time as a child.
My mother worked in a finance office and my dad in a school for children
with physical disabilities. When they couldn't afford childcare, my dad
would arrange to have me be absorbed into one of the classes in the
school. When he went into business for himself, I started going to work
with him all the time. Strangely, my younger sister was never at either of
their workplaces. I never understood this. We had something called "shadow
Day" in high school where we had to follow a parent or someone around for
the day. That was the one day I spent at my mom's workplace [and only
because I'd already known the inside-outs of my dad's business]. As for
boys being taken to work, I can't say -- my cousins came in same-gender
bunches. Some of the boys went to work with their parents, and some of the
girls did, but since they're all from different nuclear families, it's
impossible to know. All that said, my personal experiences _do not_ reflect
the norm, and I know this.
-s.
--
shannon salisbury, B.A. english literature IV
ssal...@chat.carleton.ca http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~ssalisbu
Roving Reporter
>On 3 Apr 1999 12:27:56 -0500, Roving Reporter
><Tls...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>On 3 Apr 1999, Amanda Walker wrote:
>>>Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net> writes:
>>>> Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
>>>> kind of equivalent?
>>>
>>>That depends on what you mean by "equivalent". Sure, they have
>>>achievement awards of various sorts. But "eagle scout" is a business
>>>credential, while a girl scouting award is a hobby. "Eagle scout" is
>>>something a man can list on his resume and gain points for. Granted,
>>>this is probably less and less of a factor as the man gets older, but
>>>every little bit helps when you're young.
>>
>>Hmm. I sense a good PR opportunity, if someone can come up with a spiffy
>>name that would stand up there with the name "Eagle Scout" for girl scouts
>>who make the pinnacle. Any suggestions?
>
><rolling eyes> Right, all we need is a spiffy title that
>would magically erase the dismissal of women's achievements.
>Why didn't anyone ever think of that before?
>
>The problem, Therese, is not there isn't a level of
>achievement for women roughly equitable to Eagle Scout. The
>problem is that if such an equivalent is presented, it is
>not given equivalent weight by its audience, whether job
>interviewer or whatever.
Sure, but you start with an eye-catching title, and then follow it with the
PR. I think in today's society, people are a little more willing to be
convinced. Guys like titles, so let's give them one for the women!
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Beth Linker
: On 3 Apr 1999, Ann Simonds wrote:
:>The problem, Therese, is not there isn't a level of
:>achievement for women roughly equitable to Eagle Scout. The
:>problem is that if such an equivalent is presented, it is
:>not given equivalent weight by its audience, whether job
:>interviewer or whatever.
: Sure, but you start with an eye-catching title, and then follow it with the
: PR. I think in today's society, people are a little more willing to be
: convinced. Guys like titles, so let's give them one for the women!
It's not about titles, it's about networking. Doors open for guys who're
in the Boy Scouts or fraternities because of other guys who were in the
Boy Scouts or the same fraternity. It's not people like me who're giving
extra points to job applicants who were Eagle Scouts, it's people who were
also Eagle Scouts.
-Beth
--
Beth Linker
bli...@pobox.com
Opihf
>In article <1.3?sny...@panix.com> Roving Reporter wrote:
>: On 3 Apr 1999, Ann Simonds wrote:
>
>:>The problem, Therese, is not there isn't a level of
>:>achievement for women roughly equitable to Eagle Scout. The
>:>problem is that if such an equivalent is presented, it is
>:>not given equivalent weight by its audience, whether job
>:>interviewer or whatever.
>
>
>: Sure, but you start with an eye-catching title, and then follow it with the
>: PR. I think in today's society, people are a little more willing to be
>: convinced. Guys like titles, so let's give them one for the women!
Uh, Therese, you're proving everyone else's point here. There is an awrd in
Girl Scouting, and IMO, it's harder to get and worth a whole lot more. It's
called the Gold Award, and I have one, and it's been around for a long time.
When you earn one, you get aletter from the president and all sorts of other
cool stuff. Girl Scouts have also been doing things like take Our Daughter's
To Work Day for a long time. You've never heard of this stuff. Neither have a
lot of people. You know why? Here's a hint- it's not because of the name, nor
is it wholly a p.r. problem.
Alison (who's given up on her .sig)
Imperialist Running Pig
>Carol
>who earned girl scout awards out of overwhelming boredom
Meeee tooooooo!!
--
____
Piglet \bi/ I got new glasses! See 'em at
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.modo.com/modo/specs/0443.htm
Imperialist Running Pig
>In article <1.~g3oy...@panix.com>,>>http://www.modo.com/modo/specs/0443.htm
>This picture would be way more interesting if you were
>actually *wearing* the specs.
I'll work on it.
Mireille92
>>Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother can
>>take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look quite as
>>impressive as "eagle scout".
>
>Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
>kind of equivalent?
They do, although few people are as impressed by it because they don't know
what it is. However, I believe the point is that while she could take her
daughter camping, it *isn't* the same as the daughter going out wilderness
camping with her scout troop and earning merit badges from it.
Even though there were guidelines written up for our troop leaders to take us
out wildnerness camping, our scout troop had to fight long and hard for them to
let us go. (Wilderness camping, according to their guidelines, was the
pup-tent-and-backpack kind of camping, rather than the cabins-at-a-camp,
hot-showers-available kind.)
--
Mirei...@aol.com
"I've always wanted to be somebody. Next time I'll be more specific."
Christina Matta
Imperialist Running Pig <pig...@panix.com> wrote in article
<1.wcb...@panix.com>...
> il...@mtcc.com (that bitch), in article <1.h$3oy2*j...@panix.com>, dixit:
> >In article <1.~g3oy...@panix.com>,
> >Imperialist Running Pig <pig...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>I got new glasses! See 'em at
> >>http://www.modo.com/modo/specs/0443.htm
>
> >This picture would be way more interesting if you were
> >actually *wearing* the specs.
>
> I'll work on it.
.gif! .gif! .gif!
In return I will email you a .jpg of my hair.
Tina
Diana Trent
>In article <1.7tfny2}{4...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> What is your objection to a "take your CHILDREN to work
>> day? If boys have already been taken to work - as you
>> claim - then another trip is not going to show them anything
>> new. Besides, the very name of the event would be a blow
>> for gender inclusion, not gender EXclusion.
>>
>Hello? Earth to Diana. There does *not* exist an equal playing field
>for girls and boys or for women and men. Why does one day celebrating
>girls getting information of the workplace threaten you? How does it
>threaten your son's already superior standing in society by nature of
>their being born male?
>
You are missing the forest for the trees. The goal is
for children to be treated equally, and to learn to EXPECT
to be treated equally. Creating special events just for one
gender does not foster equality, it fosters division and
seperatism and resentment.
>> >Hey you played the "my poor sons" card. Quid pro quo baby. A mother
>> >can take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look
>> >quite as impressive as "eagle scout".
>> >
>> You made the claim that girls are told they "can't go
>> camping" What girls are being told that, and by whom?
>>
>Well AFAIK girls connot join the boy scouts.
Who said anything about scouting? Forget the
conformist and ultra-conservative scout groups -
take your kids camping YOURSELF. Teach them about
the outdoors YOURSELF.
So yes, girls can go camping.
>They cannot go in a fashion that is not only training them about the
>land and environement but also providing them with resume building
>material for which to boost their careers as they get older. Boys can.
>Where's the gender inclusion?
If you don't think Girl Scouts and Campfire measure
up to what Boy Scouts do, what are you doing about it?
Have you gone to their meetings and demanded more
riqorous outdoors training?
And why are so locked in to formalized "scouting" anyway?
>Why not change every father-son event into parent-child
>events?
I advocated just that position awhile back, as
you may recall.
>
>Diana, sorry, I'm not buying the "my poor sons" argument no matter how
>much you try to derail the conversation. Boys already have the cards
>stacked in their favor by nature of birth. Your sons already have
>superior standing in society. One day of sitting in school while the
>girls get to join their parents at work is not going to matter to them.
>It may, however, matter to a few girls. That's the point.
>
The "point" is the creation of equality and the
expectation of equality. And that is not helped
by dividing children by gender and treating them
differently.
Angst Girl
> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1.aphny2/s...@panix.com>:
>
> >>
> >Hello? Earth to Diana. There does *not* exist an equal playing field
> >for girls and boys or for women and men. Why does one day celebrating
> >girls getting information of the workplace threaten you? How does it
> >threaten your son's already superior standing in society by nature of
> >their being born male?
> >
>
>
> You are missing the forest for the trees. The goal is
> for children to be treated equally, and to learn to EXPECT
> to be treated equally. Creating special events just for one
> gender does not foster equality, it fosters division and
> seperatism and resentment.
If we were starting with a level playing field that would be fine and
dandy. There is not now, nor will there be in the foreseeable future, a
level playing field for both boys and girls. Your boys resent girls for
getting to leave school for one day? Too bad. Girls resent all the
advantages laid out for boys by nature of their being born boys.
> >>
> >Well AFAIK girls connot join the boy scouts.
>
>
>
> Who said anything about scouting? Forget the
> conformist and ultra-conservative scout groups -
> take your kids camping YOURSELF. Teach them about
> the outdoors YOURSELF.
I can. And it still won't appear on a resume the way "eagle scout" will.
> So yes, girls can go camping.
> >They cannot go in a fashion that is not only training them about the
> >land and environement but also providing them with resume building
> >material for which to boost their careers as they get older. Boys can.
> >Where's the gender inclusion?
>
>
> If you don't think Girl Scouts and Campfire measure
> up to what Boy Scouts do, what are you doing about it?
> Have you gone to their meetings and demanded more
> riqorous outdoors training?
>
> And why are so locked in to formalized "scouting" anyway?
It's not necessarily about rigorous training. It's about prestige and
titles that girls are never even given the opportunity to try and earn.
>
> >Why not change every father-son event into parent-child
> >events?
>
>
>
> I advocated just that position awhile back, as
> you may recall.
Er, no. What you did was state that women on this group reacted negatively
to something that brought fathers and sons together. They did not. They
stated that one day of girls going to work with their parents was not equal
to in any way shape or form to seasons and years of father-son little
league events.
> >
> >Diana, sorry, I'm not buying the "my poor sons" argument no matter how
> >much you try to derail the conversation. Boys already have the cards
> >stacked in their favor by nature of birth. Your sons already have
> >superior standing in society. One day of sitting in school while the
> >girls get to join their parents at work is not going to matter to them.
> >It may, however, matter to a few girls. That's the point.
> >
>
> The "point" is the creation of equality and the
> expectation of equality. And that is not helped
> by dividing children by gender and treating them
> differently.
>
Ok so let's stop giving boys all the perks and start giving some perks to
girls. In about 4 million years we may have something that looks very
close to a level playing field and then we can extend all perks to all
genders.
Jills
--
"I just want to be normal, like the *first* time I was on the Jerry
Springer Show."
--Denny Welch
Jills is at http://members.bellatlantic.net/~jgreff
--
Al
:In article <1.1-o...@panix.com>, Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> Angst Girl <jgr...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in <1.aphny2/s...@panix.com>:
:> >Well AFAIK girls connot join the boy scouts.
:> Who said anything about scouting? Forget the
:> conformist and ultra-conservative scout groups -
:> take your kids camping YOURSELF. Teach them about
:> the outdoors YOURSELF.
:
:I can. And it still won't appear on a resume the way "eagle scout" will.
not to mention that not all parents have the
opportunity/skills/time/equipment/etc to take their kids camping.
-al
al...@columbia.edu
http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~al417
Roving Reporter
>In article <1.~53ny...@panix.com>, Roving Reporter <Tls...@concentric.net>
>writes:
>>>take her daughter camping but on a resume somehow it doesn't look quite as
>>>impressive as "eagle scout".
>>
>>kind of equivalent?
>
>They do, although few people are as impressed by it because they don't know
>what it is. However, I believe the point is that while she could take her
>daughter camping, it *isn't* the same as the daughter going out wilderness
>camping with her scout troop and earning merit badges from it.
Oh. Hmm, you mean the girl scouts don't earn merit badges for wilderness
camping?
>Even though there were guidelines written up for our troop leaders to take us
>out wildnerness camping, our scout troop had to fight long and hard for them to
>let us go. (Wilderness camping, according to their guidelines, was the
>pup-tent-and-backpack kind of camping, rather than the cabins-at-a-camp,
>hot-showers-available kind.)
This is strange to me, but then I'm from California where even non-scouts
can go wilderness camping with little trouble, providing they have a rugged
vehicle to get to the areas where the trails start and the equipment
necessary to go camping.
Don't girl scouts have wilderness (not the cabins-at-camp
hot-shower-available kind) camping? I've been to campsites where there
wasn't a shower -- just pit toilets. It's OK, not something I'd do for long
periods of time now, but it was fun as a kid, and I wasn't any kind of
scout. My father used to be assistant scoutmaster so I got to go on camping
trips with my family as a side-benefit.
The reason I didn't join the scouts or any other youth group was that I
didn't find out about the fun stuff until I was too old to join.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Chloe Pajerek
> >Hmm, not to disparage the point, but I thought the girl scouts had some
> >kind of equivalent?
>
> They do, although few people are as impressed by it because they don't know
> what it is.
>
I'm curious: Do the Girl Scouts have an explicit anti-gay policy
like the Boy Scouts? (The BSA also rejects atheists).
- Chloe
Imperialist Running Pig
>I'm curious: Do the Girl Scouts have an explicit anti-gay policy
>like the Boy Scouts? (The BSA also rejects atheists).
No, the Girls Scouts are queer-friendly and non-denominational.
http://www.gsusa.org/
Caveat: Much depends on the individual troop. But there's nothing in
the national guidelines or culture that's like the BSA stance.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ I got new glasses! See 'em at
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.modo.com/modo/specs/0443.htm
Opihf
>Oh. Hmm, you mean the girl scouts don't earn merit badges for wilderness
>camping?
>
Actually, girls earn interest projects, not merit badges, and yes they can earn
them for wilderness camping. We did a heck of a lot of it in my troop. I
think the point is that even though Girl Scouting has been around for 87 years,
you and lots of other women don't know much about it. And please note that in
the US, apart from a common origin, Girl Scouting and Boy Scouting are
_completely_ unrelated.
Therese also wrote:
>
>Don't girl scouts have wilderness (not the cabins-at-camp
>hot-shower-available kind) camping?
Yes, yes, yes. We also went igloo camping, backpacking, and built a lot of
trails. I got really good at using pickaxes and the like. Again, even though
you're in CA, you've never heard of this stuff. Sense a pattern?
Alison
------------------------------------------------------------------ Feminism is
not being able to buy the
latest glitter lipstick. Feminism is believing in yourself. ~Amy Ray
Opihf
>
>I'm curious: Do the Girl Scouts have an explicit anti-gay policy
>like the Boy Scouts? (The BSA also rejects atheists).
>
I've said it before, I'll say it again. GSUSA is _completely_ separate and
different from BSA. GSUSA has an _explicit_ policy of acceptance. Sexual
orientation, religion, and the like are not criteria for membership. There is
a spiritual component, but one is allowed to substitute any word or belief or
none at all, and no one is going to make a fuss. Many, many girl scouts are
gay, many leaders are gay, and many volunteers and staff are gay. Girl
Scouting, at least the way I've always practiced it is a very progressive,
feminist organization.
Opihf
> Who said anything about scouting? Forget the
> conformist and ultra-conservative scout groups -
Do you know anything at all about Girl Scouting besides prejudices and personal
experience?
Alison
Imperialist Running Pig
>Actually, girls earn interest projects, not merit badges, and yes
>they can earn them for wilderness camping. We did a heck of a lot of
>it in my troop. I think the point is that even though Girl Scouting
>has been around for 87 years, you and lots of other women don't know
>much about it. And please note that in the US, apart from a common
>origin, Girl Scouting and Boy Scouting are _completely_ unrelated.
Interest projects? That's definitely a more 90's name for 'em. Might
make one less inclined to get them out of boredom.
Wilderness camping is another of those troop- and possibly decade-
dependent things. There was *no* *way* our troop was going to be
allowed to go wilderness camping. We got to camp at the campground,
with floored cabins, that was it. Couldn't even swing our own axes,
grrr.
I'm glad to hear your troop did. The times, may they keep on
a-changing.
But the real reason I followed up: common origin? I don't theenk so.
Juliette Low had no association with Baden-Powell.
--
____
Piglet \bi/ I got new glasses! See 'em at
pig...@piglet.org \/ http://www.modo.com/modo/specs/0443.htm
--
Opihf
>Wilderness camping is another of those troop- and possibly decade-
>dependent things. There was *no* *way* our troop was going to be
>allowed to go wilderness camping. We got to camp at the campground,
>with floored cabins, that was it. Couldn't even swing our own axes,
>grrr.
>
Well, the real problem here is a leader who was not well-skilled in girl
planning, which is supposed to be the basis of girl scouting. Sorry you missed
ou
t.>
>I'm glad to hear your troop did. The times, may they keep on
>a-changing.
>
Don't think so, I'm 28- how old are you? My troop was doing this kind of thing
before I was born. I think it's a troop-to-troop variation.
>
>But the real reason I followed up: common origin? I don't theenk so.
>Juliette Low had no association with Baden-Powell.
>--
Actually, Girl Guiding was founded by Agnes Baden-Powell in response to girls
watching the Boy Scouts march in a parade and want to join in. Juliette Low
was in Scotland at the time and brought the idea back to Savannah in 1912.
She founded the first troop, and did all sorts of cool stuff like selling her
pearls to fund the organization. her motto when something needed to be
decided: "Ask the girls!" My troop leaders always did.
Alison (thought I'd dumped that messed up .sig. Sigh)
Nicole Delessert Shields
> Therese wrote:
> >Don't girl scouts have wilderness (not the cabins-at-camp
> >hot-shower-available kind) camping?
> Yes, yes, yes. We also went igloo camping, backpacking, and built a lot of
> trails. I got really good at using pickaxes and the like. Again, even though
> you're in CA, you've never heard of this stuff. Sense a pattern?
Depends where you are. When I was a girl scout, we didn't. We had a
sleepover in the Boston Museum of Science. We earned badges for cooking,
sewing, and making birds out of contruction paper. We sold cookies.
Funnily enough, the girls whose mothers were the troop leaders always sold
the most cookies and got the prizes. We sang some songs.
-Nicole
Opihf
>
>Um, I think this might be an example of historical space and time in
>action
(snipped a lot of girl scouty stuff)
I think it's more about place and specific troop than anything else. While
there have always been badges/ interest projects about hospitlity and such, and
some people even liked earning them (not me!) as far back as the first GS
handbook (I think it was 1915) there were badges for things like Aviation.
Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter how cool the program is if the
people responsible for operations (ie the troop leaders) have a limited view of
what girls can do.
Alison (my favorite bit of the original GS handbook was the bit that showed how
to tie up a burglar with a bbit of string and his two pinkies)
------------------------------------------------------------------ Feminism is
not being able to buy the
latest glitter lipstick. Feminism is believing in yourself. ~Amy Ray
--
Amanda Walker
> You are missing the forest for the trees. The goal is
> for children to be treated equally, and to learn to EXPECT
> to be treated equally.
I am uncomfortable with how this is framed. How about "the goal is
for adults to treat children equally, so that they learn to expect to
be treated equally"? The problem is not, after all, with the
children. Children have no choice but to observe how adults act.
This is part of what makes this a vicious circle. For childrens'
expectations to change, adults' behavior must change. This is hard.
One of the advantages of, I suspect, of an all-girls school or college
is that it provides girls a respite from seeing adult women
maginalized. Of course, it doesn't do this across the board, but it
provides at least a basic existence proof that there exist conditions
under which Ms. Photon the physics teacher isn't clearly paid less
and treated as less important than Mr. Muscle the football coach.
> The "point" is the creation of equality and the
> expectation of equality.
Children won't expect equality until they experience it. And they
won't experience it until the adults around them practice it.
> And that is not helped by dividing children by gender and
> treating them differently.
Children are divided by gender and treated differently every day in
every mixed-gender schoolroom. Ask any kid.
I don't know which is better, but I don't think it's as simple as you
suggest.
Amanda Walker
Ann Simonds
wrote:
>In article <1.do&oy2&y...@panix.com>, Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote:
>
>Weren't you leaving?
Must be one of those delayed posts again. Ha.
- Ann
Roving Reporter
>Therese wrote:
>>camping?
>Actually, girls earn interest projects, not merit badges, and yes they can earn
>them for wilderness camping. We did a heck of a lot of it in my troop. I
>think the point is that even though Girl Scouting has been around for 87 years,
>you and lots of other women don't know much about it. And please note that in
>the US, apart from a common origin, Girl Scouting and Boy Scouting are
>_completely_ unrelated.
>
>Therese also wrote:
>>Don't girl scouts have wilderness (not the cabins-at-camp
>>hot-shower-available kind) camping?
>
>Yes, yes, yes. We also went igloo camping, backpacking, and built a lot of
>trails. I got really good at using pickaxes and the like. Again, even though
>you're in CA, you've never heard of this stuff. Sense a pattern?
Maybe you do, but I don't. The only reason I know a fair amount about boy
scouts is because of my father/brother having been directly involved and by
extension, the entire immediate family got roped in, so to speak. (That's
just in the cub scouts however; older scouts are expected to want to do
their stuff with other boys, rather than as a part of their family unit.)
I also remember that my dad nagged my brother to complete his merit badges,
and if not for that, he would probably not have become an Eagle Scout. I
thought it was a lot of work and was glad *then* that I wasn't the one who
had to do it...of course I didn't realise that it had "marketing"
potential.
--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!
--
Christine Jacobs
> I've said it before, I'll say it again. GSUSA is _completely_ separate and
> different from BSA. GSUSA has an _explicit_ policy of acceptance. Sexual
> orientation, religion, and the like are not criteria for membership. There is
> a spiritual component, but one is allowed to substitute any word or belief or
> none at all, and no one is going to make a fuss. Many, many girl scouts are
> gay, many leaders are gay, and many volunteers and staff are gay. Girl
> Scouting, at least the way I've always practiced it is a very progressive,
> feminist organization.
I'm curious - can one get involved with GSUSA at any point in one's
life? I dropped it when I was 10 or so (we were running out of space to
pile the construction paper placemats), and my grandmother, a Scout for
70 years, was terribly disappointed. Since she died a few years ago,
I've been trying to think of something I could do to honor her memory,
so to speak, and scouting (_real_ scouting, not what passed for it in my
yuppie hometown) was one of her most beloved pastimes. I don't know
anyone in the organization anymore, and I have no kids myself. Could I
still get involved?
-- Christine
_____________________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/3079
"I shall never permit myself to stoop so low as to hate another man."
- Booker T. Washington
_____________________________________________________________________
Christine Jacobs
> I think it's more about place and specific troop than anything else. While
> there have always been badges/ interest projects about hospitlity and such, and
> some people even liked earning them (not me!) as far back as the first GS
> handbook (I think it was 1915) there were badges for things like Aviation.
> Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter how cool the program is if the
> people responsible for operations (ie the troop leaders) have a limited view of
> what girls can do.
>
> Alison (my favorite bit of the original GS handbook was the bit that showed how
> to tie up a burglar with a bbit of string and his two pinkies)
Geez, I really missed out in Scouts. All we ever did was make
construction paper placemats and sit-upons. Oh wait, I forgot, I grew
up in Yuppieville (tm). Our troop leaders didn't do outdoors.
And 14 years later, I finally buy my own tent!
-- Christine (waiting for the ground to dry out a little - anyone know
any nice, quiet camping places in VT?)
Opihf
>
>I'm curious - can one get involved with GSUSA at any point in one's
>life?
Absolutely. Call your local Girl Scout council (usually listed in the phone
book) and tell them you're an alum who wants back in. They'll love to have
you, and you can do all the fun outdoorsy stuff yyou wish you'd been ble to do
as a girl.
Alison(who will someday post about something else)
Diana Trent
<1.4h_oy2&8...@panix.com>:
>Diana Trent <dit...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> You are missing the forest for the trees. The goal is
>> for children to be treated equally, and to learn to EXPECT
>> to be treated equally.
>
>I am uncomfortable with how this is framed. How about "the goal is
>for adults to treat children equally, so that they learn to expect to
>be treated equally"? The problem is not, after all, with the
>children. Children have no choice but to observe how adults act.
>This is part of what makes this a vicious circle. For childrens'
>expectations to change, adults' behavior must change. This is hard.
>
That is just my point. If children see parents treating
them as equal, they will learn to treat each other as equal.
And who can have a problem with that?
>One of the advantages of, I suspect, of an all-girls school or college
>is that it provides girls a respite from seeing adult women
>maginalized. Of course, it doesn't do this across the board, but it
>provides at least a basic existence proof that there exist conditions
>under which Ms. Photon the physics teacher isn't clearly paid less
>and treated as less important than Mr. Muscle the football coach.
I posted here previously the AAUW report on single
sex schools, which concluded that they do NOT provide
a measureable benefit to either gender. I thought
otherwise myself until I read it, but cannot find
grounds to dispute it right now. They do not seem to
have a ax to gring about same-sex schooling, anyway.
>> The "point" is the creation of equality and the
>> expectation of equality.
>
>Children won't expect equality until they experience it. And they
>won't experience it until the adults around them practice it.
>
I agree entirely.
>> And that is not helped by dividing children by gender and
>> treating them differently.
>
>Children are divided by gender and treated differently every day in
>every mixed-gender schoolroom. Ask any kid.
>
I agree here as well. Treating children differently
according to gender will always be with us, but the
goal should be to reduce it, not enhance it.