Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: muffy%mica.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Socialization of men and women (was Re: sexist space...)
Message-ID: <9103091851.AA00695@mica.berkeley.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 91 18:27:30 GMT
References: <9103062330.aa03738@orion.oac.uci.edu>
	<1991Mar8.105328.17019@panix.uucp>
Organization: Natural Language Inc.
Lines: 47
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

The idea of "masculine" and "feminine" characterstics has come up
again.  People seem to agree that the set of characterstics classified
as masculine have always been more highly regarded.  My question is,
have both men and women felt that way, or was it just men?

These days, I hear a lot from women about how masculine
characteristics are responsible for all the problems in the world, and
feminine characteristics are much better.

However, the recent discussion here about women-only colleges doesn't
agree with this.  It is seen as desirable for people to speak up in
class, and it is regarded as an expresion of masculine characteristics
(aggressiveness, competitiveness, etc).  I believe that speaking up in
class is a good thing; if I was interested in/excited by a subject, I
enjoyed it more when I talked about it in class.  In one case, the
subject was rather dull, but my conversations with the teacher were
very interesting, and I was excited by understanding the subject, even
though I wasn't excited by the subject itself.  In the few cases where
I felt discouraged from talking in class, I tended to lose interest in
the subject.  I didn't feel that I was being discouraged for being
female, but I must admit that I hadn't heard at the time that women
were supposed to be being discouraged, so I wasn't looking for this.

Some people have said that what women need is to become more
competitive, agressive, etc (i.e. assume masculine characteristics).
Others have said that the best thing for women is to form societies of
their own, eliminating the "masculine" characteristics altogether.  I
haven't heard many people say that the best thing would be for people
to be allowed to develop their own set of characteristics, regardless
of their gender.  Putting labels on the characteristics seems to cause
people to see the entire set as "good" or "bad," depending on their
ideas.

The problem is not in the way men or women are socialized, rather, the
problem is that they are socialized in distinct ways.  If some
characteristic is desirable, why isn't it desirable in everyone?  Of
course, making everyone the same isn't a great idea, either.  Well, I
never have any solutions, but I do believe that something shouldn't be
condemned (or applauded) just because it carries the "masculine" or
"feminine" label, and I believe that people should get a chance to
develop as people, rather than "boys" or "girls."

Speaking of which, does anyone have a good argument in favor of one
sex or the other being encouraged in a particular characteristic,
while the other is discouraged?

Muffy