Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: This, that, and the other thing. [stunningly long] Message-ID: <688@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 12:02:34 EST Article-I.D.: rti-sel.688 Posted: Thu Feb 27 12:02:34 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 17:08:02 EST References: <659@rti-sel.UUCP> <1651@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <672@rti-sel.UUCP> <1722@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) Distribution: net Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 94 Xref: watmath net.women:9386 net.singles:10521 Summary: In article <1722@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes: >>... My >>posting was a reaction to what I perceived as an obnoxious attempt to >>stereotype men by the actions of a subset of men > >I realize that. My posting was intended to clear up that mispercep- >tion. To the best of my recollection, the original posting did *not* >claim "that ALL men acted such and such a way". It merely pointed >out an annoyance that far more women than men have to face. ... Well, OK, maybe I was wrong. I no longer have the original posting around, so let's say it's possible that the attitudes I thought I saw in the original posting weren't in fact there... >>([...]; now you tell ME why it's OK for feminists to stereotype ... > >It's not. > >>Oh, and by the way, I've been 'repeatedly interrupted' by people ... > >Then you know how truly annoying it is. > >>... just that all this talk >>about those nasty men being this way and those bitchy women being that >>way GETS US NOWHERE. > >That's true. However, talking about "those nasty men being this way >and those bitchy women being that way" is not our only option. Agreed on all of this. But my perception is that a lot of the discussion on this and related issues HAS been full of sweeping generalizations and unfair stereotypes. On both sides. >We >could talk about what sets of problems/annoyances impede women and >men. Then we could talk about how the sets differ, in an effort to >determine which problems are simply a consequence of living with >folks and which problems are a consequence of gender-related stereo- >typing. Once we have a clearer idea of what type of problem we're >dealing with, we can further investigate its cause in the hopes of >indentifying a remedy or, better yet, a prevention. ... The problem I had with the original posting is a problem I have with many postings to the net: they complain about a situation, then offer no suggestions as to cause or remedy. The net effect (;-) is to suggest to the reader that group X behaves in such and such a fashion because "they're that way, you know." The implied solution is that group Y must isolate itself from group X or otherwise reduce its negative influence. There was no suggestion (to me) in the original posting that the negative beach behavior of some men didn't reflect negatively on all men, or that men in general were in some sense improvable. The general impression I got was that the original poster was disgusted with behavior she saw as being "typically" male, and was ready to set up all-female beaches as a solution. This is an exaggeration, I know, but captures the flavor of my reaction to the original posting. And I'm still not convinced my reaction to her (not to you) was a misconception.. >space in the hopes of making sexual contact, and refusing to leave when >it's made clear that such intrusion is not welcome) is, almost by defi- >nition, carried out by rather insensitive people (insensitive to others' >feelings, although not necessarily insensitive to pain themselves). And >such insensitive folks are not likely to recognize the need to change; >hence they'd be unlikely to make the rather substantial commitment >necessary. Negative feedback affects even insensitive people, I think, if it comes often enough and closely enough to the behavior that stimulates it. >the earth. But as far as assholes go...well, assholes have their (our? >:-) place too. I mean, Anita Bryant did more for the gay movement than >Gertrude Stein. And Phyllis Schlafly did more for feminism than Amelia >Earheart. True enough. >If one of our beach buddies is being said jerk, don't say "Hey, that's >some fox. Nice try, buddy!"; rather, say "Hey, you asshole. Can't >you see that person doesn't want to be disturbed? Lay off!". If we >see such behavior on TV or in a movie, comment (at some appropriate >time, mabye during a commercial) about how obnoxious the person was >being. Unfortunately, some of these guys are such dim bulbs that even obvious and frequent disapproval doesn't work. And they're likely to be hanging out with OTHER dim bulbs who simply reinforce their behavior and think that males who behave differently are less than fully male ... but I do think more and more people are becoming conscious of this as a problem, and the frequency of this kind of obnoxious behavior in the male population is becoming lower. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly