Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!batcomputer!cheryl From: cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Career vs. Relationship? Message-ID: <204@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 15:28:43 EST Article-I.D.: batcompu.204 Posted: Wed Feb 5 15:28:43 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 02:28:59 EST References: <481@ssc-vax.UUCP> <2340@reed.UUCP> <2341@reed.UUCP> Reply-To: cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () Distribution: na Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 109 In article <470@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.UUCP writes: >> A reaction against sexism in any context is always correct, >> because sexism is always wrong. Sexism is just as bad as >> racism. Would you say that, in a personal relationship, >> a black man should be subservient to a white man, even >> though black men are now not to be discriminated against >> professionally? Would you say that a black man should confine >> his anger at racism to the political arena, and not try >> to counteract racism when he encounters it at the drinking >> fountain, or on the bus, or when taking a white woman out >> on a date? He should just realize that it's a "personal >> decision", and that he should make the decision that doesn't >> get his own self beat up, huh? > >Are you saying that a black *person* should continue to eat at a previously >segregated restaurant even though the food is terrible and not even the >kind that the person likes? A previously segregated restaurant would make sure to serve bad food to a black *person*, just to make him or her go away, the same way *men* knowingly and purposefully make work unpleasant for women who competete with them. It's VERY necessary for the black *person* to not only eat at the restaurant, but send the food back when it's bad, and bring in as many of his or her black friends as possible, for the sake of counteracting racism. They should also not give the proprieter any good reason to throw them out. > >That is the kind of statement you *seem* to be making in regard to reacting >against sexism. Am I confused? No, you're not confused at all. > >> It is important that people defend their principles, >> not for their own happiness, but for the common good. >> We should work actively to stamp out sexism, even if >> it means making decisions which make us personally lonely >> or unhappy--just for the sake of helping destroy harmful >> stereotypes. > >This seems a strong dose of nobility! > >> What you are proposing is that women only take their own >> "happiness" into account when deciding between a career and >> a relationship, not their principles or deeply held >> beliefs. > >I didn't get that at all from that article. The point that I thought was >being made was that one shouldn't *automatically* allow society's stupid >expectations *force* you to do *either* what they expect *or* what they >don't expect. Do what *you* think is right under the circumstances at >hand. > >> Such a decision is NOT a "personal" decision, > >Of course it is, along with being, as you point out, a professional and a >political decision. What objection have you to considering all three and >then making a decision based on what *you* want regardless of sexist or >racist or generic-ist expectations either way? My objection is that women are constantly told that their decision between a relationship and a career is a "personal" one only. Men are constantly pushing women in subtle and overt ways to make decisions which reinforce male dominance in the political & professional arenas. They hold out candy like "happiness" to "help" women make decisions which reinforce male dominance in the political & professional world. They say, "oh, well, whatever makes you HAPPY, dear," and then when they start experiencing job-related stress, the men say "oh, well, if you're not HAPPY, you don't have to work, you know..." rather than teaching them how to be more effective people. Men treat women like self-indulgent children, and as a result (myself included) women tend to remain self-indulgent children. > >> it is a professional decision, because it directly involves >> the health of a career. 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. >> >>>>you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only >>>>the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >>>>indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by >>>>the fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. > >> Honey, I work my butt off every day to climb out >> of the sexist trash that's thrown at me, and I'll >> be damned if I just let that trash sit there for >> some other poor woman to walk through. > >That, of course, is your choice. That is the point. I assume that you >made this choice for *your* reasons. Why not allow others that priviledge? >Why try to make others feel guilty if their choice is different from >yours? Oh, come on. Why does a reverend try to make his congregation feel guilty when they don't contribute to the church coffer? Why did Malcolm X make the distinction between "house niggers" and "field niggers"? They can make their choices, but if they're not part of the solution, they're part of the problem. And I'm quite free to regard them as such. Cheryl