Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!nsc!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <110@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 03:06:15 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.110
Posted: Mon Feb 10 03:06:15 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 06:16:18 EST
References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.women:8864 net.singles:10200

> >However, the
> >pigeonhole of "married" for a woman contains all kinds of assumptions that
> >don't apply in my case, but were applied to me when I was married.  Because
> >I signed a legal document that changed my marital status under the law,
> >suddenly:
> >
> >	I was not a good candidate for jobs
> >	I was not a good candidate for friendships
> >	I was not a "serious" student
> >	I did not have separate opinions
> >	I could not make plans independently
> >
> 
> 	CORRECT.  *AND* if you are single, never married,
> 	all of the same above assumptions are made -- because
> 	people *expect* that you will someday be a *married* 
> 	woman.  Now these are general blind stupid assumptions
> 	made by blind stupid people, BUT there are many 
> 	NON-blind, NON-stupid people who KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSEFULLY
> 	*USE* these commonly held assumptions *against* bright,
> 	competitive young women because bright, competitive
> 	young women threaten male dominance in general, and 
> 	bright competitive young women threaten *them* and
> 	*their* *male* *buddies* in particular.  I know
> 	what the response will be already -- the men will
> 	(self-servingly) call me 'paranoid', and the
> 	women will say, "hey, yeah, I see that going on all
> 	the time! what can we do about it"
> 
> Cheryl

Well...

I think Cheryl has a good point.  Some stupid men think that women (married and
unmarried) aren't good for much.  Some other men act as if they believe the
same thing because it "keeps women in their place".  I have no idea of the
proportions or numbers because I have never had to deal with it first hand.
I do know that I have seen men in positions of authority treat women this way,
and have talked to women who have had to deal with it.

So what do we do about it?  Each person who agrees that women should not be
judged as poor candidates for jobs, etc. because of their marital status (or
assumptions about their future marital status) could stand up for his or her
beliefs by telling men that they're wrong when we see them acting this way.
I doubt that this would be very effective, though.  It would be like telling
a "good ole boy" in Mississippi ca. 1960 that he was being naughty when he
refused to serve black people in his establishment (that *doesn't* mean one
shouldn't do it).

How does one promote social change in most of these areas, then?  There are
already laws against job discrimination against women, so the best thing to
do is to try to elect candidates who will enforce these laws (Reagan was a
bad choice).  The other areas (friendships, being taken seriously as
a student, respect for separate opinions, respect for womens' abilities to
make independent plans) involve cultural assumptions that can't be
legislated away.  Maybe the best thing would be a media campaign.  I've never
organized anything bigger than a birthday party, so I have no idea how one
would go about it.  Ideas?
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff