Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Career vs. Relationship? Message-ID: <1370@ames.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 00:24:06 EST Article-I.D.: ames.1370 Posted: Tue Jan 28 00:24:06 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 02:05:52 EST References: <481@ssc-vax.UUCP> <2340@reed.UUCP> <2341@reed.UUCP> <1350@ames.UUCP> <2785@ihuxf.UUCP> <178@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 50 Just a couple of followup points to my earlier article. When I wrote: >>Anger at >>sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way >>when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. ...at least 2 people took this to mean that feminist activism should restrict itself to clearly political issues like ERA or equal pay for equal work. Let me clarify: I consider it appropriate for women to combat sexist assumptions wherever they're found. In the sense I meant it, these would all be political goals, because the goal is to change society. What was being discussed, however, was personal decisions between career and other goals. Ellen Eades' article justified a decision to put education before romance on the basis that men had been pulling this for years. I couldn't see why the justification was necessary; the decision was Ellen's business. So I reasoned thus: suppose Ellen had really *wanted*, for whatever reason, to put that relationship before her education; wouldn't her inability to justify that decision in the light of her political beliefs cripple her ability to figure out what was really right for her? I feel it is more liberated to see that you don't *need* any justification for this kind of decision beyond "I want to". A little more on this theme, in response to Cheryl Stewart, who writes of these kinds of decisions: [...] It is also a political decision, because one person's actions and attitudes influence a LOT of people. And a LOT of people makes a constituency for political action. Political in that it can *have* such an influence, yes; but not in the sense that it *obligates* a woman to a particular choice. The decision is hers, and hers alone, to make on whatever basis she wishes. But if she makes it on the basis of wanting to be a "good example" to other women, I think she is as much caught in the trap of living for other people, as any stereotypical suburban housewife. I guess I see less harm in making your own mistakes, than in not making your own decisions. >>Being free >>of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it > First of all, the word you want is "flaut", not "flaunt". Uh, actually, it's "flout"; seems I put my foot in both our mouths - how unsanitary :-}. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry