what the big deal is
fl...@umcp-cs.uucp
But what is being objected to here? ONE person's opinions about men
(and in some other's letters, the fact that whole bunch of women
didn't leap onto the bandwagon to defend men's feelings*). Lissen,
[* Iconoclasts's note: the author's choice of word here constitues
an error in diction. So SIC em!]
honeys, ya gotsta take care o yo own feelins yoseff.
L S Chabot
Correct me if I misunderstand: the point here is that men have to defend
themselves, as a class, from "reverse bigotry", with no help from women; and
likewise, women should not demand help from men when women are the target?
Well NO DEAL. I intend to come to other groups' defense whenever I perceive
that they are getting rotten treatment, AND I EXPECT THE SAME FROM YOU, AND
I'LL GET ON YOUR CASE ABOUT IT. So sign me, "My sister's keeper".
Now that NET WARS is over (I hope), let me say a few words about
those famous words. It sounds very easy to denounce "most men" as
"insensitive, chauvanist assholes". But did you really have an eye
for the sensitive kind? DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT IS A "SIGN"
OF SENSITIVITY? DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT THAT?
[EMPHASIS added]
-- Farzin Mokhtarian Path: ubc-vision!mokhtar
A H H A !!!
A A H H A A !!!
A A H H A A !!!
AAAAA HHHHHHH AAAAA !
A A H H A A
A A H H A A !!!
This guy Farzin Mokhtarian must be very smart -- he keeps saying things I
agree with! (:-))
--The expiring iconoclast
(I'm leaving soon for Wash U. in St. Lou),
Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
Ron Christian
Now that NET WARS is over (I hope), let me say a few words about
those famous words. It sounds very easy to denounce "most men" as
"insensitive, chauvanist assholes". But did you really have an eye
for the sensitive kind? DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT IS A "SIGN"
OF SENSITIVITY? DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT THAT?
[EMPHASIS added]
-- Farzin Mokhtarian Path: ubc-vision!mokhtar
Nah. All pretentiousness and hand wringing aside, sensitivity in males
is often viewed by BOTH sexes as weakness. The assholes may be assholes,
but they don't spend their nights alone. Do we say one thing and do another,
I wonder?
--
"Trivia is important." Ron Christian
Watkins-Johnson Co.
San Jose, Calif.
(...ios!wjvax!ron)
ti...@mako.uucp
be abandoned. The fact remains that there are all kinds of men and all
kinds of women, who accept different modes of behavior. So if you're a
women and a man acts like a macho-MCP-whatever, remember that although he
may not be appealling to you, there are plenty of women who will like it
just fine, otherwise, he wouldn't act that way.
(I don't deny any social arguments for said behavior, I am just pointing
it out)
Rich Rosen
> is often viewed by BOTH sexes as weakness. The assholes may be assholes,
> but they don't spend their nights alone. Do we say one thing and do another,
One of the saddest but truest facets of this whole topic of discussion is that,
for all the claims of sexual progress and enlightened thinking on sex roles,
such things are still the status quo. That means not only that men live by
the "old rules" but that women do too. Why? Because many people just don't
know any better, because those people who just accept such things without
thinking about them don't realize what behavior means to those around them.
Many people have come forward and said that they and all their friends don't
live by those old rules, and somehow conclude that neither does the rest of
the world. Those in the "vanguard" may think that because of what *they've*
seen, the "job" is done. It's not. No one said it would be easy.
--
It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there.
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
Alan S. Driscoll
> about why complaining that "men also have it bad, so don't put all the blame
> on us" is a real live evasion of the first order and get back to me.
Ok, I'll address your point. Let's look at your perception of women as
victims in an oppressor/victim relationship from two perspectives.
Political perspective:
In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following
conditions must hold:
(1) The group is a minority.
(2) The group does not have voting rights.
Since women are a VOTING MAJORITY in this country, you're comparison of
their situation to that of Blacks in the 1950's is simply bogus. As a
VOTING MAJORITY, they have MORE say in their situation than anyone else.
(Notice where the strongest opposition to the ERA is coming from.)
Emotional perspective:
You have to deal with societal norms in certain situations (e.g., work).
Not much you can do about this, short of becoming a hermit. Still, you
choose who to socialize with, who to develop relationships with, etc.
Superficial involvements may be largely forced on you, but deeper ones
are by choice.
You accuse me of having inaccurate perceptions because I surround myself
with "forward-thinking" people. But don't you see -- anyone can do what
I've done. I create my own environment. So can you. So can any woman.
(And I know many who have.) There are enough people out there, enough
possibilities, that you can create whatever environment you like.
So, from both perspectives, women are essentially free. How they use
that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like
"oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack
of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to
accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term.
Finally, I consider the traditional roles a losing proposition, at best,
from either end, not a black/white, winner/loser situation. Men have it
better in some respects, women in others, but overall, both lose out. I
didn't reject the game for ethical reasons (what you would call "returning
the extra bottle of milk"), but for practical reasons (my own happiness).
--
Alan S. Driscoll
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Alan M. Gross
The strongest opposition to the ERA (of course, we all know that 70%
of the people in this country support it) comes from the Morman and
Roman Catholic churches. Both have exclusively male hierarchies. I'm
not a member of either, but I've heard from members that these
organizations put a lot of time, energy, and money into the defeat of
the ERA.
--
Alan M. Gross
{ariel,burl,clyde,floyd,
gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amg
Sunny Kirsten
What vote options do women have to choose from? A non-war platform?
A non-sexist one? One female veep? For convenience?
The old-boys-school is far too closed to have any *real* options.
We have a two party system, where both parties party together in Washington DC.
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny(Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)
Rich Rosen
> conditions must hold:
> (1) The group is a minority.
> (2) The group does not have voting rights.
> Since women are a VOTING MAJORITY in this country, you're comparison of
> their situation to that of Blacks in the 1950's is simply bogus. As a
> VOTING MAJORITY, they have MORE say in their situation than anyone else.
> (Notice where the strongest opposition to the ERA is coming from.)
You seem to be expending a lot of energy to show examples of why women are
not oppressed. You also have what I would consider a rather naive view of
the nature of democracy in general and this country in particular. I'll
elaborate further below.
> You accuse me of having inaccurate perceptions because I surround myself
> with "forward-thinking" people. But don't you see -- anyone can do what
> I've done. I create my own environment. So can you. So can any woman.
> (And I know many who have.) There are enough people out there, enough
> possibilities, that you can create whatever environment you like.
> So, from both perspectives, women are essentially free. How they use
> that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like
> "oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack
> of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to
> accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term.
By those definitions, everybody is free. Even people in Communist or other
totalitarian countries, people in prison. Able to create their own
environment and associate with whomever they choose. You may choose the term
"ignorance" to describe those who do choose not to choose for themselves, and
it is apt. But some people in this world are trapped by their ignorance,
and very few people in this world have the strength/stamina/intellect/will
to escape from such ignorance. In an sanitized isolated environment it might
seem easy, but, face it, *you've* never had to do it; you were fortunate to
have been raised and educated with some degree of independent thinking. Try
learning *that* if the status quo is all you know.
--
"If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!"
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
Alan S. Driscoll
>> that freedom is their own responsibility. I prefer to save words like
>> "oppressor" and "victim" for situations in which there is a true lack
>> of freedom, imposed from the outside. Where the individual is free to
>> accept or reject a norm, "ignorance" would be a more appropriate term.
> By those definitions, everybody is free. Even people in Communist or other
> totalitarian countries, people in prison. Able to create their own
> environment and associate with whomever they choose.
I discussed both political freedom and emotional freedom. I discussed
them separately, because I think it's a great mistake to confuse them.
Despite my efforts, you insist on doing just that.
Once again, let's take them *one* at a time. Women, *as a group*, are
politically free in this country, since they comprise a voting majority
in a democracy. Women, *as individuals*, are emotionally free, since
they (like everyone else) are responsible for their relationships.
As for people in totalitarian countries or prisoners, again, I'll deal
with the two forms of freedom separately. Politically, they obviously
aren't free. (My argument about women is irrelevant, since they're not
in a democratic situation.) Emotionally, they are free, simply because
*everyone* is.
You hear people denying responsibility for their relationships all the
time. (Our culture teachs men and women to wait for the right person,
rather than becoming the right person.) A little while ago, there was
a discussion about the "lack of single, intelligent women." What bull!
If these guys were stranded on an island, then I'd agree they had lost
their emotional freedom. If they were stranded, though, they had access
to the net, so why not pop off an article to net.rescue.me? :-)
In future discussions, Rich, please be careful to avoid this confusion.
Women certainly haven't achieved political equality in this country, but
it is dishonest to carry that over into *personal* relationships. I can
blame my political situation on someone else. Blaming relationships on
someone else (or giving credit) is just a display of ignorance. In the
*personal* realm, we are responsible for ourselves. Period.
ken perlow
>> If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
>> What vote options do women have to choose from? A non-war platform?
>> A non-sexist one? One female veep? For convenience?
>> The old-boys-school is far too closed to have any *real* options.
>> We have a two party system, where both parties party together in
>> Washington DC.
>> Sunny Kirsten
True! Here in America we have the inalienable right to ineffectual
protest.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 28 Jul 84 [10 Thermidor An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
Ed Hall
] & ...
] & barrier to equality: the fact that many women are forced to live in
] & fear of male aggression. Just ask any woman who has spent much time
] & ...
] & We, as men, are the only ones who can change this; not just by avoiding
]
] And the women sit back passively, avoiding fearsome things while the big
] strong men in shining armour fix the world?... The above recomendation
] would still lead to a man's world, though it would be nicer to women.
] ...What is called for is BOTH men and women to work together, the only
] reasonable choice. ...Isn't equality (including that of responsibility)
] the main idea? -- Brian Peterson bri...@shark.UUCP
I don't think I'm guilty of such awful self-contradiction, Brian. If
you have been following my postings (does anyone? :-)) you'd know that
I firmly believe that cooperation between the sexes is the only road
to equality of the sexes.
Your article seems to say that women are equally responsible as men for
eliminating male aggression against women. I doubt that you meant that.
And if you read my article again, closely, you'll see that my message is
simply: ``Men, take responsibility for getting the message across to
other men: male aggression against women is *wrong*.''
At no point did I suggest passivity on the part of women. (I *like*
assertive women! :-) ) At no point did I say that women should not
actively oppose male aggression; they certainly should. But the
excesses of the male role must be addressed directly by males. Only
after sexist men have cleaned up their acts and treat women with respect
can they work with women for equality.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
P.S. Anyone who takes my last sentence to imply that all men are sexist
should be banned to an eternity of net.flames. 1/2 :-)
B. Banerjee
>> barrier to equality: the fact that many women are forced to live in
>> can be pretty much routine.
>>
Absolutely!! Unfortunately women aren't the only ones subjected
to aggressive behaviour. I steer clear of bars where bikers hang
out after the very bad experience of a friend of mine.
>>
>> We, as men, are the only ones who can change this; not just by avoiding
>> such behavior ourselves (as I'm sure that many of us in this enlightened
>> group have never engaged in it), but by confronting it when we see other
>> men doing it.
>>
We should confront this sort of behaviour irregardless of who is
being victimised.
Regards,
--
Binayak Banerjee
{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje
P.S.
Send Flames, I love mail.