Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!geoff From: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: career vs. relationships Message-ID: <1040@burl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 10:29:25 EST Article-I.D.: burl.1040 Posted: Thu Feb 20 10:29:25 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 05:54:55 EST References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1951@hao.UUCP> <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Reply-To: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC Lines: 59 Xref: watmath net.women:9130 net.singles:10350 Summary: In article <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > > 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. You've hit the nail right on the head. If you actually manage to provoke open warfare between the sexes (unlikely, but if...) women will lose. A sexist statement? Possibly, but I am thinking more along the lines of 'God is on the side with the most ammunition'. If you back a rat into a corner it will fight against great odds. But what if the rat attempts to back a cat into a corner? Will the fact that the cat is larger and stronger than the rat really prevent it from taking action in its own defense? If there is a 'power balance' between the sexes it currently lies rather heavily in favor of men. The greatest thing that the 'feminist stance' (I quote that because I don't want to get involved in trying to define/defend/attack the term) is that it is RIGHT. Sexism is a non-rational attack against PEOPLE based upon certain physical characteristics. Racism is the same. So is bigotry against any ethnic group you care to name. As long as the 'war' is fought on these grounds you will receive a lot of moral support (and other kinds) from people who are not otherwise involved. This is akin to Gandi's liberation of India. And its ultimate success will rest on the same principles that his did -- people are basically GOOD. There will always be jerks and assholes out there, but these are made all the more noticable because of the way they stand out from the milieu. If this were not true, then Gandi's plan would not have worked. If the British response had simply been to kill 10 people for every infraction, non-violence would have gotten him nowhere. The Indians would probably have won the ensuing war, but at what cost? Pyrrhic victories belong in textbooks, not in real life. So what is the answer? I think education is the only effective means. Make people aware of the sexism that exists, and why and how it deny's women the right to be PEOPLE and to be treated as such. > 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 am glad to hear you are willing to hold your own views. I would never attack you for 'not saying what all the other feminists are saying' -- whatEVER that might be. I am just saddened to hear that you are willing to throw your strongest weapon out the door just to feed your ego. Name calling and vicious diatribes are not only childish -- they are BORING. -- geoff sherwood ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!geoff ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!geoff "If your words can't stand on their own, adding volume won't help"