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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!batcomputer!cheryl From: cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: career vs. relationships Message-ID: <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Date: Sun, 16-Feb-86 17:08:50 EST Article-I.D.: batcompu.251 Posted: Sun Feb 16 17:08:50 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 04:42:18 EST References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1951@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 100 Xref: watmath net.women:9119 net.singles:10341 In article <1951@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> 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 wome threaten male dominance in general > > This is a crock. No it is not. I've seen male graduate students say of a fellow female graduate student, "she should be having kids by now." She wasn't even married. She had no intention of ever doing so. She was also a hell of a lot brighter than them -- her undergraduate degree was in physics, theirs in meteorology. She was working in atmospheric physics, they, chasing tornadoes. They hurt her because she threatened their macho-scientist masculinity thing because she so clearly outclassed them. They were merciless towards her. You may know her -- Theresa Schulz. >Yes, I'll call you paranoid, but it does not "serve" me >to do so. What this really is is sexism and stereotyping, exactly the >same thing I hear you complaining so bitterly against when practiced by men. If you read the section of the article you posted, you may notice that I said "some PEOPLE..." By that I mean Phyllis Schaffly just as much as I mean Jerry Falwell, and their minor counterparts in positions of influence and power in businesses & academic departments across the country. Have you read Joanne Simpson's article? >Listen to yourself. You are putting all men into a class based on their gender. >If that isn't sexism, I don't know what is. If you want to create a non-sexist >world (a goal I am 100% for, because believe it or not society also has I don't want to "create a non-sexist world" -- I'm not in the business of creating worlds. I only said that some people are willing to KNOWINGLY and PURPOSEFULLY USE conventionaly societal expectations of women to the disadvantage of competitive women. To hurt them. To cast aspersions on their motives and ideals. To erode their advantages of a superior mind by pointing out social disadvantages which may or may not exist -- the disadvantage of having children, for instance. Here we have a woman who neither has nor intends to have children, yet the men around her, the men with whom she successfully competes with, say that she "ought to be having children." It's like some stupid old woman patting me on the knee telling me that I won't have to worry about doing well in school when I get married. These people really annoy me. I don't see why you're accusing me of "sexism" in this context. Maybe you can't read. >expectations about what a MAN should or shouldn't do, some of which I find >as objectionable as you apparently do those about women) you could start >by not practicing it yourself. Oh, I get it. Men are allowed to be sexist in defense of their dominance, but women aren't allowed to be sexist when challenging that dominance. Now I see why the women's movement has been so unsuccessful. By virtue of the feminist stance -- non-sexism -- feminists are denied access to the strongest weapon used against them. Maybe if we redefine "feminism" as a fight against male dominance because male dominance is wrong -- rather than as a fight against sexism -- then we'd have a fighting chance. Of course, I reserve the right to hold to my own views -- that feminism should be a fight against male dominance -- rather than let some MAN tell me that I'm not right because I'm not saying what all the other feminists are saying. > I think you are giving a lot of ignorant jerks a lot more credit than they >deserve. This whole notion that all men deliberately subjogate all women >is ridiculous, and propogating it only serves to give the few who really >*are* trying to dominate an "excuse" to do so. You admit that there *are* some people who *are* trying to subjugate women. Then you and I are in complete agreement. I never said "all men were..." I merely said "some people...." The fact that people who are looking for excuses to dominate women will MISREAD, MISQUOTE, and MISINTERPRET what a woman says or does -- to deliberately accuse her of irrationality or hypocrisy -- when no such irrationality or hypocrisy exists in the first place -- is a perfect example of what I was referring to. So you're just plain wrong. > >--Greg >-- >{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} > !hao!woods > >CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA > >"If the game is lost, we're all the same; >No one left to place or take the blame"