Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!utah-gr!donn From: donn@utah-gr.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: career vs. relationships Message-ID: <1694@utah-gr.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Feb-86 18:39:32 EST Article-I.D.: utah-gr.1694 Posted: Thu Feb 27 18:39:32 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 18:55:43 EST References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1951@hao.UUCP> <138@sfsup.UUCP> Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Lines: 80 Xref: watmath net.women:9461 net.singles:10592 Summary: Phooey. Cheryl Stewart: 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. Marty Shannon: Now, I can't suggest that fellow male netters treat Cheryl the same way I might suggest they treat a male poster who is as self-contradictory, as Cheryl would just use that as further evidence that *all* men are vicious woman-haters, but I, for one, intend to continue to read what she has to say, file it away as what *one* woman can interpret the state of the world as, and hope that someone helps her see how things really are. Does anyone else get the impression that Marty Shannon is proving Cheryl Stewart's point here? I'm still puzzled why people (all right, SOME people -- whatever happened to (SOME) people's ability to read and understand rhetoric?) seem to have so much trouble accepting what I think is Cheryl Stewart's most important argument... Maybe if I utter it rather than Cheryl, people will take it seriously -- after all, I'm a man and Cheryl isn't. (And whatever happened to (SOME) people's capacity to interpret irony? Grumble.) A woman who quits school when men who are more persistent get their degrees; a woman who accepts a lower-paying job than a man would, as a nurse or an elementary school teacher or a housewife; a woman who settles for 'being happy' instead of 'being successful'; a woman who puts her livelihood in the hands of men -- such a woman is going to be swinging from men's chains for the rest of her life. If the men are nice to her, she'll be happy pickin' cotton and singin' gospel music; if the men are hard on her, THERE WON'T BE A DAMNED THING SHE CAN DO ABOUT IT. This society teaches its men to be independent. Mothers tell their sons, 'Johnny, if you don't do well in school you won't be able to get a job when you grow up.' Fathers say, 'Get a job, son. A REAL job.' Daughters are indulged. They are directed to take dance classes instead of advanced algebra, art appreciation instead of physics, home ec instead of shop. Don't get me wrong -- this world has a place for excellent dancers and great artists. But how many of these girls who took dance are going to become professional dancers? How many will become mathematicians, engineers, auto mechanics? How many will be able to dictate the course of their future careers? Every last one of those girls who settled for something less than the boys did is contributing to the stereotype which (SOME) men use to oppress truly competitive women. That stereotype says, women aren't serious about their futures, we can't count on women to be as determined on the job as men, they never persevere. I get most upset when I see women use that stereotype against themselves. As an undergraduate in linguistics I commonly attended classes in which I was the only male student. It wasn't until I was a senior that I realized what a hoax this was -- I was the only student in my graduating class! All of my female classmates had dropped out or had taken a degree in teaching English as a foreign language so that they could become school teachers. As far as I know only one woman in the class behind me went on to graduate study (Hi, Susanna, hope you were more successful than I was!). All of these women had accepted society's guff that they shouldn't have to try too hard, shouldn't aspire to more than the second income in a middle-class home with time out to raise the kids. And what happens when they find themselves with three kids, no earning potential, and a husband who likes to drink a lot and punch them out? What happens when they're divorced or widowed and forced to live on welfare? It's a lie that women don't need to be independent. Does this sound any better when a man says it? Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn