Conference turris::womannotes-v2

          I've read that rape is all the hatred, contempt, and oppression
          of women in this society concentrated in one act.

          When women successfully surmount most of the obstacles leading to
          social, economic, and political equality, they will still be
          opressed as a group if rape statistics are 1 in 4.  This
          likelihood of male violence results in women leading lives of
          restraint - restraint in leisure activities, restraint in career
          choices, and restraint in self-expression.

          Yes, that is oppression.
                                                            nancy b.

    Asking if women just "allow themselves to be oppressed" is like
    asking if the black majority in South Africa just "allow themselves
    to be oppressed". It's an excuse to lay the blame on women.
    
    --- jerry

    Thanks, Jerry, you took the words straight out my mouth.

    Any group in power has the means to ensure that they remain in power,
    short of a revolution.  Majority, minority, doesn't matter...power
    confers "majority" status ipso facto.
    
    						=maggie

    >It's an excuse to lay the blame on women.

But it's also self-defeating to say the women have no responsibility for
their position.

There is an unfortunate circle: if women have the ability to become 
unoppressed, then in some way it is our "fault" for not having done so.
If women *can't* make the change, then why should be bother trying?

Saying that men are entirely responsible for women being who and where
they are means saying that women were entirely powerless against the men
and were unable to affect their destinies.  

Excersicing our power to change our position now means admitting that we
*have* the power, and if we have it now, we had it before (unless that
power was something granted us recently, in which case it isn't truly
woman power anyway), and if we had it and didn't use it - then we can't
be entirely blameless.

I can feel the heat already...

D!

    So, do you advocate revolution?  The model says that's what it will
    take.

RE:  .4 (D!)

I said basically the same thing in the Misogyny note.....so at least know you
won't get heat from me.  ;-)


I believe that no group of adults is completely blameless in ANYTHING. 

kath

>    So, do you advocate revolution?  The model says that's what it will
>    take.

Maggie, was that directed toward me?  I don't quite understand.  What exactly
do you mean by "revolution", and what does what model "say" about it?

D!

    
    re: .0
    so, what kind of 'heat' are you taking?  what are the reactions you
    are getting?  how do you respond?  
    Just curious, as you could be describing my brother...(not my dad,
    he kept the house cleaner than mom).  I've witnessed my brother
    tell my sister-in-law 'get up and fix me a steak' while we were 
    all sitting around watching tv...weird...i told him to 'do it
    yourself!'...
    
    re: last few
    Certainly there is enough blame to go all around.  Often folks
    accept the 'oppression' because they don't view it as such, or
    they don't think its wrong, or they don't think they have an
    alternative...and it looks like 'agreement to suppression'.
    However, the trouble with that is when one woman accepts the 
    oppression the fellow gets the idea it ok, and tries to use
    the same tactics on other women, who may not be so accepting,
    and thus arises problems/arguments/anger/frustration.  
    
    Do I hear a revolution call?
    
    d
    

    <--(.7)
    
    Sorry, D, yes it was.  
    
    By "revolution" I mean "working outside the system", as in violating
    current rules/laws about how one gets power, possibly being what would
    doubtless be termed "violent" or "criminal", etc.  
    
    The "model" is the one that Jerry implicitly pointed up with his
    reference to South Africa:  the white minority is oppressing the black
    majority because the whites have the power and are able to commit
    violent, repressive acts under the guise of law.  The model states that
    the only way this can be stopped is by revolution, either in the hearts
    of the oppressors or, more likely, in the streets.
    
    						=maggie

.8>	I've witnessed my brother tell my sister-in-law 'get up and fix 
.8>	me a steak' while we were all sitting around watching tv...weird
.8>	...i told him to 'do it yourself!'...

	I was raised in a very traditional household where Mom did most
	(99%) of the cooking and housework and Dad took care of the cars
	and yard.  (My Mom just learned how to pump gas two years ago at
	age 46.  Yikes!)  However, I was also raised in the "do it your-
	self" generation.  It was commonplace to hear such a comment at
	home, on television, and at other households I might visit.  It
	was sort of a joke, almost.  You know, like saying something a
	bit offensive to someone and then if they react negatively, you
	trail it with a "just kidding!"

	It's only now that I feel I can actually tell someone to do it 
	themselves if I don't want to do it, and not feel guilty.

	Carla

>    Well, I have been acting more like a *male* (sorry guys) for the past 
>    eight days.  I do not do anything I don't feel like. 

 I can tell that by the end of this list, I am not going to feel very "male."
I wish I didn't do anything I didn't feel like.

>I refuse to feel guilty. 

 Show me how!

>I don't clean up around the house, unless it happens to be my 
>    mess 

 I'm feeling an estrogen reaction coming on.

 Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 To answer the question, I'd say that both factors exist. Men do oppress women,
and women do allow themselves to be suppressed.

 The Doctah

    I guess I'd say I believe in a synthesis of the ideas expressed
    thus far.  As the Doc said, I think both factors exist.  As
    Jerry and =maggie have indicated, I think there men, as a class,
    have oppressed women as a class; it seems to me that this oppression
    continues today although there are some signs of change and progress.
    
    At the same time, I think I understand what some have said about
    the nature of responsibility in changing this oppression.  For me,
    the key to understanding the often-expressed notion that women
    ". . .have just allowed themselves to be suppressed" lies in the
    dynamics of belief.  I don't think women have "allowed" them-
    selves to be suppressed so much as I think that they have, at
    least historically, believed that their suppression was the
    inevitable (if not "natural") order of things.
    
    It seems to me that one important element in all successful revo-
    lutions (peaceful or otherwise) is the belief in the minds of the 
    oppressed that they could change the situation.  I follow that
    school of thought that says that we, as humans, act in accordance 
    with our beliefs.  As long as I'm of the belief that "this is the 
    way it's always been, the way it's 'supposed' to be, or, most im-
    portantly, the way it always will be", I will do little to change 
    things.  When, in the words of Dr. King, "I have a dream" that I 
    truly believe can be achieved, I will act to fulfill that dream or 
    belief. 
    
    To the extent that an oppressed class believes that it holds no
    power nor can change the way things are, I think it might be said
    that they allow themselves to be suppressed, although I really
    don't think the word "allow" fits here.  To me, the connotation 
    of "allowing" something to be is that I understand all possible
    outcomes and choose one in particular.  Insofar as an oppressed
    class of people does not understand or believe that there's 
    an option *not* to be oppressed, it seems to me that there is
    no real "allowing" or choosing going on in the fullest sense.
    
    I think that what we're seeing today is the burgeoning of belief
    in millions of women that this condition of oppression can and
    should be changed.  I also believe that there are at least a few
    men who share that belief.  I also agree with the model that it's
    taking a revolution to achieve this change; it's hard to escape
    the lessons of history that those with power usually relinquish 
    it only with great reluctance and often only by forceful means.
    
    I believe (and ardently hope) that this revolution will be more
    peaceful than most (i.e. in the historic sense.  I don't think
    we'll see batallions of women and men openning up on each other
    with artillery and small arms fire), but this isn't to say that
    there isn't and won't be any violence.  And there certainly is
    and will be anger.  
    
    It seems to me that the events in China and eastern Europe during 
    the last year show us, if nothing else, that massive political 
    power shifts can occur either by predominantly peaceful means or 
    by bloodbath.
    
    Steve

re 936.12 -              
    
>    I think that they have, at
>    least historically, believed that their suppression was the
>    inevitable (if not "natural") order of things.
    

With the major western religions shoving this outlook down everyone's
throats for the past 2000+ years -- starting with Adam and Eve -- and with
the same outlook becoming encoded in social conventions, in science, and in
law, it's not *too* surprising. 

    re: .13
    
    Agreed.  Come to think of it, from what I understand, the western
    religions don't have a lock on this.  Seems to me I recall more
    than a few "Quotable Sexists" from the east remarking on "the
    place of women".
    
    Steve

re: 936.4 (D!)

> if women have the ability to become unoppressed, 
> then in some way it is our "fault" for not having done so.
...
> Saying that men are entirely responsible for women being who and where
> they are means saying that women were entirely powerless against the men
> and were unable to affect their destinies.  

	But D!, women *did* start out powerless/defenseless against men : 
	Is it our *fault* we have estrogen and men have testosterone?

			From the "Why Men?" topic (757.76):

MARY> So why did this happen?  
 
ME> Simple.  Because men are physically stronger than women. 
  >          (the _root_ cause of all social, political and economic
  >    	     inequalities women face today in 1990)

  > Even though what the gatherer did was as important,Thalia could not protect 
  > herself from the men unless she *paired* with Thor who would protect
  > her from being raped and otherwise abused by the other men.  
  > The price she paid for this protection was great.
                      			              ^^^^  --> OPPRESSION
                                              
YOU> Excersicing our power to change our position now means admitting that we
   > *have* the power, and if we have it now, we had it before 
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	No.  Women don't have greater physical strength, but "power" has become
	somewhat less dependent on that in modern Western society.  Greater
	physical strength is a power we never had; never will have (steriods 
	have too many side effects ;-).  Progress is being made in terms of 
	social, political, and economic equality.  These "powers", *new* to 
	women, are providing vehicles for greater change.

								nancy b.

    
    re:.15
    following along the same lines, one might mention the development
    of reliable contraception as a great advance in 'equalizing' power.
    it changes the whole ball game if women are not *required* to have
    children.
    

    .16> it changes the whole ball game if women are not *required* to have
    .16> children.

    I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio) the other day when they
    were interviewing a doctor in Rumania.  It seems one of the first
    things they did after the revolution was to lift the law requiring
    women to bear four children.  They also legalized birth control and
    abortion. 

    At the hospital where this doctor worked he said there were
    approximately  3,000 births per year and 3,000 cases of botched
    abortions.  He said that many women wouldn't come in for medical
    treatment because there were spies on the ward who were good at finding
    out what women were in for.  If the spies decided it was an abortion
    the women would be interrogated up to a year later.  Women who didn't
    have four children were also interrogated and penalized with heavy
    childless taxes.  I don't know if there were any criminal penalties.   

    Was the women's rights angle covered by any other news?  

    Anyway, this is a big change for the oppressed women (and men) of
    Rumania.  It will be interesting to follow how much this changes the
    "ballgame" in their country and society.
    
    			Bb  

    re .14
    
    Agreed, too - I'd be the first to say that western religions don't
    have a lock on the oppression/subordination of women. Nor western
    societal traditions either (Chinese footbinding, er, hobbles to mind). 
    I said western because I'm more familiar with western traditions and I
    suppose they've had the most influence on our own society today.
    
    Dorian

    re. Joe
    
    Of course the first thought leaping to my mind with the 4-child
    requirement in Rumania was the question of sterility.  I mean did a
    woman 'get a note from her doctor' exempting her from this quota if she
    was unable to conceive?  And what about the necessity for more genetic
    material than women have on board?  If a woman was married [whatever]
    to a man having a bona fide sterility excuse from his doctor, was she
    required to explore other avenues of acquiring the required genetic
    material? 
    
    Yes, I know of many alternative sources; but it would be unusual for an
    agency with strict taboos on contraception and abortion to mandate
    either multiple partners or donor means or surrogacy...
    
      Ann

Maggie:
>    By "revolution" I mean "working outside the system", as in violating
>    current rules/laws about how one gets power, possibly being what would
>    doubtless be termed "violent" or "criminal", etc.  
 
Alright.  I am not convinced that the model *I* presented makes revolution
necessary.  In fact, I would say I didn't present a model, so much as a 
paradoxical way of looking at the situation. However, I think (ask me tomorrow
and I might give a different answer) that revolution, in the sense of working
outside the system to achieve change, *is* necessary.  I don't think it
needs to be violent, and I also think there needs to be changes within
the system too.  (I talked a little bit about this in the misogyny note.)

Nancy>	But D!, women *did* start out powerless/defenseless against men : 
Nancy>	Is it our *fault* we have estrogen and men have testosterone?

As I said, I think there are two ways of looking at it, and the "powerless"
is one way.  Yes, men had an advantage from the start.  However, part of the
problem with taking this view is it means we are still powerless.  It's
not a good forward-looking view.  I think to really achieve change we must
take full *responsibility* for where we are, and part of that is "blame".
(I am very uncomofrtable with the word "blame", and am just using it because
it was part of the original question.  Simiarly, like Steve, I am uncomfortable
with the use of "allow".)

Nancy>	No.  Women don't have greater physical strength, but "power" has become
Nancy>	somewhat less dependent on that in modern Western society.  

Yes, and as other people have pointed out, technological advances in birth
control have freed women from the "necessity" of bearing children.  But these
are external changes.  If we are not responsible for these changes, then the
power is not from *within*, but a "granted" power.  If we *are* responsible,
then we are back to the fact that we must have had the power to change
before those changes happened.  (Technological changes are almost always 
the work of men; however the societal changes due to those technical advances
are the work of all.)

I fear I am not being at all clear in what I am trying to say.  Let me think
on it some more.

D!

    re:.4
    
    By saying "It's an excuse to lay the blame on women," I did not
    intend to say that all the blame necessarily belongs to the men.
    I would agree with some of the other responses in that we *all*
    -- men and women both -- share some of the blame, though the
    bulk of it is clearly owned by us. Because we men *have* the
    power to change the status quo, in our (society's) laws and in
    our (men's) minds, quickly and effortlessly. Women as a class can
    chance things, but only slowly and with great effort without help
    from the patriarchy.
    
    re:.10
    
    Don't feel too bad about your mother learning to pump gas at 46.
    My mother didn't learn until she was into her 60's. I'm 36, and
    I still don't know how to cook (except a few simple things) or sew.
    
    --- jerry

    
    This is a real TENSE topic.. Upon reading all these responses,      
    I feel *SAD* one minute and then *GREATFUL* the next.
    
    I am 22 years old, and have been raised the "get it yourself"  but
    be polite and ask if "anyone needs anything" way.  But my brothers'
    ONLY responsibility was to take out the trash..and he couldn't even
    do that! He'd rather be watching "Lost In Space".. (seems appropriate 
    huh?)
    
    It's true I think, that most girls are brought up to be "nice" and polite 
    and are expected to make coffee, the beds, have long hair, soft skin etc.. 
    as GIRLS, but as girls turn into WOMEN, it's up to them if they STAY
    that way, play the same role when they leave the "nest". (??) 
    
    I've learned alot about myself sense I've started reading "WN".   I 
    think it's up to me, if I want to "BABY" my boyfriend.. take his shoes 
    off, make him dinner, wash/iron his clothes, shut up and yes him to
    death!  I think the "molding" starts as soon as you begin to discover
    yourself (what your capable of etc..)  
    
    I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, I hope I'm not confusing you.
    
    As I said in the beginning..I feel sad when I think of what women went 
    through..just because they are women!   C'mon!   Someones gonna tell 
    ME I HAVE to have 4 CHILDREN!  I can't even IMAGINE THAT!!!   and I 
    feel sad for the women who had to go through that period of "obedience"
    "shut up and fix me dinner".  (I really get MAD at just the THOUGHT 
     of someone saying that to me!!!)
    
    I also feel grateful for all those people who fought against things
    like that, and who established the ERA and the revolution, because
    if it wasn't for those people, Someone now COULD have an upper hand on
    my life and my decisions.
    
    Right now women have to fight (AGAIN) to keep abortion legal.  I can't
    stomach the thought of a room full of men making a decision OF MINE 
    like that.  I FIRMLY believe that that is a decision a woman has to
    make.
    
    It seems like there aren't ANY women in the political 'bull fighting'
    ring!!!!   
    
    Here's some food for thought though.. the Statue of Liberty is a statue
    of a WOMAN!!!     Why?!
    
    Sandy "still a bit confused about this whole thing" Mazola