| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 182.3 | | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Sun Nov 15 1987 05:41 | 18 |
|
It is so bizarre to participate in a firefight, and then realize
that the combatants do not REALLY disagree with each other. Many
times, one participant is attacking a specific non-sequitur in the
logic of another, and is presumed to be attacking the 'big picture'.
This type of thing quickly ratholes the topic, and many times the
actual thoughts are never conveyed. This is why personal mail MUST
play a key role at the beginning of a skirmish. It is very difficult
for many noters to project their ideas effectively within a readable
reply's length (a screen and a half, or less). I think we've gotta
watch it.
Greg
|
| 182.4 | Why? | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Mon Nov 16 1987 15:46 | 15 |
|
Because equality is still not part of our constitution even though
it's the right thing to do.
Because equality is still not part of our constitution even though
women have asked for it.
Because equality is still not part of our constitution even though
women deserve it.
When there is something that YOU desperately want, need, deserve
and been told is YOUR RIGHT, but the person holding it is merely
smiling condescendingly at you, playing games and enjoying watching
you squirm, what do YOU do? Say "OK, never mind, thanks anyway"?
|
| 182.5 | My speculations...... | RAINBO::MODICA | | Mon Nov 16 1987 16:31 | 14 |
| Perhaps because it is easier to blame someone else than it is to
accept responsibility for ANY given situation.
Perhaps because some people don't want equality, but instead they
hope to "turn-the-tables".
Perhaps because some people are in a position of power and consider
those that want equality a threat.
Finally, maybe because some people find it easier to fight than
to consider another point of view.
My personal thoughts are that it is counterproductive. We've GOT
to be able to talk about things if change is to occur.
|
| 182.8 | | VIKING::MODICA | | Tue Nov 17 1987 13:37 | 2 |
| Whats going on with all these deletions? This note and 178 are
getting hard to follow.
|
| 182.11 | | FDCV03::ROSS | | Thu Nov 19 1987 12:28 | 6 |
| RE: .9
You have become very tiresome, very quickly.
Alan
|
| 182.12 | Beam me up Scotty | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Nov 19 1987 17:54 | 5 |
| Re .12 Is sexual inequality an issue (who's to blame),
is emotional maturity a valid subject for exploration,
or should I just watch 'Wheel of Fortune'
Russ
|
| 182.13 | Hey, beam back down here | VIKING::MODICA | | Thu Nov 19 1987 19:24 | 6 |
| RE: .12
They are all valid issues and I'm glad you've entered them.
I thought it was good to see some activity in this conference.
Hank
|
| 182.14 | what are we discussing here??? | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Fri Nov 20 1987 02:08 | 4 |
| Come on people, how about some REAL answers, huh?
Lets try not to turn this note into another rathole.
seriously answer the questions at hand.
thanx, al
|
| 182.15 | Make Love Not War | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Nov 21 1987 04:41 | 24 |
| If we want to kill each other, read Brownmiller, Vilar,
and Twain (Letter's to the Earth:Satan's Letter), and we
boot out Men, Women, and God. Hello Pandora!
Re .0
.13,.14 Well said. I think sexual inequality comes down to a
blend of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity.
Who's got it, who doesn't. And all the consequences that
result from that volatle mix. The actions each sex shows
in how they treat and respect each other. Period.
The ability to discuss issues point by point, rationally,
lovingly, moving towards the Best decision without emotions
sabotaging the process. Trying to examine possible structural
strengths and weaknesses in one's own/other's arguements/
behavioral differences, with out it being or becomming personal.
So again, I think it's emotional maturity. Emotional range.
It's accepting responsibility for problems that invariably are
one's own, and Solving the problems. And *really* structuring
ourselves in such way that Society reflects who we really are.
My own goal is an effective Partnership Society less a number
of destructive hierarchies that continue to dominate us in many
ways. 12 Eisler's are in and can be borrowed. Riane Eisler
deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Russ
|
| 182.16 | One last 'Andro' Wish | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Dec 18 1987 12:39 | 10 |
| re .0 Don yer armor.
Honest answers and no flames. No chance of it, my
end (excluding published quotes) will focus on the
Ideas. And only them.
To all: PREMISE:
Sexual Inequality is Woman's Fault.
I await.
Russ
|
| 182.17 | tell me more, doc... | GNUVAX::BOBBITT | easy as nailing jello to a tree... | Fri Dec 18 1987 13:31 | 11 |
| the premise (sexual inequality is woman's fault)
should be supported by some sort of foundation. I'd like to hear
your point of view. My point of view is that there is no clear
cut scapegoat for sexual inequality...it was brought about by many
factors/factions over many centuries. I am hoping it will take
much less time to bring things back into balance....but the primary
requirement to solve the problem is cooperation.
-Jody
|
| 182.18 | How about this theory? | RAINBO::MODICA | | Fri Dec 18 1987 16:49 | 17 |
| RE: .17 How about this theory.....
Prior to the 70's, maybe even still, weren't (aren't)
women primarily responsible the upbringing of children?
What I mean by that is that the mother is generally
speaking the one who will stay home and actually raise
the child. Til recently and still to a large degree,
men spend at least 10 hours a day away from home
out of necessity.
And don't most sexist attitudes and behaviours result from
the environment we're exposed to in our early years?
P.s. Jody, I agree with your last statement. Cooperation,
yes!
**Disclaimer** This entry generalizes and makes
blanket statements.
|
| 182.19 | | CEODEV::FAULKNER | GOD, drives a camaro. | Fri Dec 18 1987 17:52 | 4 |
| simpler premise .16 is wrong.
prove the inequalities.
i say they are equal.
merely different.
|
| 182.20 | The Family: with me so far? | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Dec 18 1987 20:11 | 28 |
| re .19 At this level, such short statements will be seen for
what they are. Reorganized, 3,4,2,1. Fine.
re .18 Yes, people do seem to be primarily raised by women.
Hence, people acquire the majority of their thoughts
from their mothers teachings (for better or worse).
re .17 Male Dominated Patriarchy ideas will be contrasted to
Women's Development thru the Ages. The extent each sex
influences ( helps/harms ) their own development, the
development of their own sex, and the development of
the opposite sex. Child raising, teenage development,
SO's, and all other Adults.
In short the ways that each sex influences itself,
their own sex, and the other sex.
My Foundation will lie with the Family. The Family
is defined as Parents and their children. There are
other definitions. My main focus will be on this one-
all under one roof thru H.S.
The nuclear family, where one or more Adults (F/M)
works inside and outside the house ( business/child-
rearing). I view the Family as a compound of unique,
distinct individuals, related by blood or marriage.
The Nuclear Family will thus be my basic, primary
topic of study. I believe this definition of Family
to be an appropriate place to start.
Modern Day unmarried 'relationships' and the "bigger
pictures" ( ie beyond the local community ) will not
be explored by me in this theory. Enter another Topic
elsewhere for such discussions.
|
| 182.21 | a little more to the left please... | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sat Dec 19 1987 02:34 | 11 |
| If you would like to go a little further:
Now that equality is in full swing, sort to speak, with both adults
working, where do the children go? Childcare. babysitters, etc.
who dominates this "field" of childcare? Women.
Who does the babysitting? Women.
Granted there are some men in these particular lines of work, but
it is dominated by women.
Thus, who teaches young people these "sexist" attitudes? Women.
Thus, who puts these spacific "jobs and Proper places" into our
yg peoples minds? Women.
|
| 182.22 | have you ever had no job and no opportunities? | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Dec 19 1987 02:46 | 14 |
| excuse me Al,
but do you know why the people who dominate child care are women?
my guess was that they were home with small kids and needed money
and started doing child care as a way to earn a living..
why does your note come over like the whole thing is a conspiracy??
Bonnie
who was pretty broke at times and thought about doing child care
because it was readily available and easier on the pride
than Macdonalds...
|
| 182.23 | | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sat Dec 19 1987 03:21 | 5 |
| No Bonnie, it wasnt ment that way. I know that, I tent to agree
also. But the question was not why ****some***** women do these
jobs, it was just an addition to the thought that****some**** men
could possibly be that way due to his upbringing by a woman, thats
all.
|
| 182.24 | 50-50 Start (Premise Correction) | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sat Dec 19 1987 06:10 | 59 |
| re .21 Women spend more time raising children than do men
(rare exceptions).
It makes sense that these children (particularly to
age 5), receive a good majority of their Family educ-
ation from their Mothers. If the amount of time spent
with their Mothers in comparison with their Father's
was (say), 8 hrs to 4 per day, then it makes sense that
the child in question (M/F), at least receives more time
with one parent. And more (potential) exposure to Ideas.
It would appear that the 2:1 time ratio during the import-
ant early formative years could well mean that the child
in question, adopts a good majority of her/his Ideas from
the Mother. A figure like 60 - 67% appears on the mark.
The above, of course, assumes that the Mother is staying
home in the rearing of the child(s). Naturally, a good
number of Modern women(compared to,say 1950), raise their
children as well as work. Or Daycare is a viable option
( ave F/M ratio needed, say 5:1 Wm).
So, what we need to take a stab at, is the *type* of
information that a child (might) receive from their respective
parents during the time that they are with them. (say 60-40).
What I'd like to suggest is for 3 Plausible Models to
be built around the education of 2 children.
1. Mother 1950. 2 Daycare 1987 3 Working Mother
( home) M/F Work (raises + works
(F 67-33) ( TBD ) ( 60 - 40 )
2 Children 2 Children 2 Children
Girl/Boy Boy/Girl Girl/Boy
(age 1-5) (age 1-5) (age 1-5)
(F/M time:TBD) (F/M time:TBD) (F/M time:TBD)
(F/M information) (F/M information) (F/M information)
taught:TBD taught:TBD taught:TBD
(F/M Educational) (F/M Educational) (F/M Educational)
level:TBD level:TBD level:TBD
I suspect this list will grow. It appears a base to start
examining possible differences in the types of information that
children receive from their respective parents and Daycare/Sitters.
Each sex that replies will cite specific information and
expressions of emotion that they are aware of that is shown
to their children. Possible differences (ie boy a truck, girl
a doll, etc) regarding (stereotypes) different teachings to
different sexes, also merit exploration.
Of course, the ages of learning can well be expanded to 18.
Let's start to explore information given to children, starting
from birth. This is an exploration. The H*ll with the Premise,
alright. The *Ratio* Starts at 50 - 50, should any undue Blame
for less than adequate developmental growth be found, then,
and only then, may such # (50-50) Start to Move.
Russ
|
| 182.25 | could this be also? | SALEM::AMARTIN | Vanna & me are a number | Sat Dec 19 1987 07:11 | 16 |
| Did you ever hear a mother say something like, "WAIT TILL YOUR FATHER
GETS HOME"!! Did you ever wonder what that statement does to a
child?
*****my opinion****
As soon as that statement is used a couple of times, the child learns
to fear the father, IE: punishment. S/he fears the father whenever
s/he does something wrong.
Thus, assuming that father = pain/hate/mean, and mother =
love/comfort/nice.
possibly, aviod fathers teachings and take heed to mothers teachings.
or to put it bluntly, daddy is bad and mommy is good.
FWIW: this does not happen in our house, we both sat down discussed
the standards of punishment , came to an agreement that if our son
did something wrong, punishment was administered then and not later.
by whoever was there at the time.
|
| 182.26 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Why do we want to go to Mars? | Sat Dec 19 1987 15:54 | 9 |
|
Not always. I had a childhood friend whose wispy
eightyish 'granny' brought hell and scunnion on
those young'ns when appropriate. But, moms usually
resort to guilt whereas the father's reaction is
more physically immediate(i.e. smarts afterwards).
By the way, does anyone remember what Ward Cleaver
did for a living?
|
| 182.27 | Musta been a hell of a guy! :-) | AXEL::FOLEY | Rebel without a Shrew | Sat Dec 19 1987 20:02 | 9 |
| 182.28 | a factor in giving children idea(l)s | LEZAH::BOBBITT | easy as nailing jello to a tree... | Sun Dec 20 1987 03:36 | 8 |
| re -a couple
I hear a listing of time spent with mother, father, education...but
what about the time spent in that tireless babysitter and its
million-and-one vocal/not so vocal messages....TV
-Jody
|
| 182.29 | Early Emotional Development | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Dec 20 1987 09:22 | 88 |
| re .22 No conspiracies here, just good points that Women do Primarily
raise children. Women, for whatever reason, spend hours
more time with them than do men. That the time Women spend
with children involves an enormous information/emotion/behavior
(shown/expressed) *interraction*, that is - exchanges of
talking, life experiences, discipline (and styles there-of)
GOES WITHOUT SAYING. Unless the TV is on all day, or the
woman absent (negligent) and away from the child she's
caring for, her influence on that particular child's dev-
elopment must be enormous. I wonder How Much Influence a
Man (ultimately) HAS on a child's development.
Few, if any communities, have men being responsible for
the raising of children. I would like for more families
to structure a better M/F time with children ratio.
I think Fathers ideally need to MAKE a more equal ACCESS
TIME. Also, I think it well that parents look for the high-
est quality Daycare/Sitters (incl AGENDA, ie STUFF TAUGHT).
To look for a D/S that has a man is an idea for Balance.
re .25 Yes, I remember my Mom said 'WTYFGH'! many a time. Looking
back, SUCH TYPE STATEMENTS do have an intimidating nature
about them. I developed certain fears/guilts as a result
(ie I thought ' If I do something wrong, Mom will tell Dad
and Dad will punish me ') I recall a few spankings by HIM.
Also him saying (after 'she' TOLD him ) "Russ, YOU GO
TO YOUR ROOM". AND, "YOU CAN'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT TO YOUR
MOTHER". "I'M *VERY* DISAPPOINTED IN YOU, *GO TO BED* NOW".
Funny, I was a pretty polite and courteous kid! Yes, he
usually asked me to explain myself ('Honest Dad, I didn't
mean for the baseball to break the window', I didn't mean
to break Mom's favorite China plate, it was an accident')
HE: " YOU SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL, YOU'VE UPSET MOTHER, GO
TO YOUR ROOM *NOW*". So, naturally, Dad invariably believed
'Mom's' version, even if I explained myself well (incl be-
ing honest).
So I suppose I came to acquire certain guilt/fears (infl-
uenced 50% + from Mom ) of screwing up ("TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES")
and, at times, paying the price at the hands of my Father.
So, perhaps, my Father acted as a (sort of) enforcer for
my Mother. Now that I think about 'it', it seems rather
peculiar. An age 10 boy certainly is no threat to his Mother.
A few times I recall Dad telling Mom things (after asking
he not) ie "I'M GOING TO TELL YOUR MOTHER". Still such state-
ments were considerably more from Mom than Dad.
It's hard to say if I viewed either my Mother or Father
as being much different regarding the quality of care I
received from them. Both are fine, mature, loving people.
The examples cited occurred on those occasional moments
when things just plain went wrong. At least as often as
not, my 'mistake' was not 'punished', particularly if
occurances were clear mistakes, I was honest, and (important
to them) their knowing that I would be "more careful next
time". Ie, It was not deliberate and, thus, no big deal.
In a way, I think I feared my Mother more. In my raising,
she was the first one to react to everything everyone had
done ( c. 1968, me 10, Fred 6, Matt .1(baby) ). That she
cared for us fiercely (lovingly,protective) is her huge
strength. Still, I tend to think that she would often over-
react to things (friends leaving messes, some animosity
having a 3rd-4th grade girlfriend(!) ). :-). Yeah, some
things are funny! Returning back, her FLAMES came FIRST
and frequently left a (fearful) IMPRESSION - for SURE.
as I think of it NOW, I'm a bit ticked off about the
whole communication process, and wished it had been better.
Especially those times when I had done something Wrong,
admitted my 'mistake', and she just HAD to tell him later.
In a way, sadly, I found that trying to be rational, honest,
and build loyalties with my Parents often doesn't mean
Confidentiality between child and Parent. Comes a time when
a child can (pretty much) know when a Parent will TELL the
OTHER the "DAILY NEWS'. In short, I eventually 'learned'
(from MYSELF - Reflecting on OTHER's ACTION'S), that an
occasional LIE or DENIAL of some 'wrongdoing', could SAVE
MY *SS. Hence the development of Child Psychology as a
reaction of/to the behavior of one's parents.
re .26 Cite some specific examples of 'Guilt' a Mother might
tell to a child. Also, any possible approaches/types/styles
of 'Guilt' dealt out to children on the basis of sex? Does
a Girl get punished as much as does a boy?
Summing up, I tend to think that my Mother influenced me
more regarding the expressions of Guilt, fear, and intim-
idation compared to the amount of such 'teachings' from
my Father. I wonder, How Much of these ideas did my Father
express to me and my brothers. Also the Quality, Life affir-
ming ones. A fertile area to explore further.
Russ
|
| 182.30 | some paintings DO age WELL | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 06 1988 17:03 | 10 |
| re .0 Let's converse. I see no one a) ever had a childhood.
b) has raised a child.
So we must be exceptions.
Regarding the 'WAR', there really is NONE.
It's just Sexual immaturity. The old days
ARE GONE. For One SEX anyway.
Russ
|
| 182.31 | We're all unique! | MSDOA1::CUNNINGHAM | | Tue Jan 12 1988 16:25 | 15 |
| I think to imply that men are not as influencial in the cultural
conditioning that a child receives is misguided.
A man meets a woman, falls in love, has a family. They chose
each other and probly shared many common values when they met.
As they grow together they share opinions and discuss political,
social, and economic choices. I have often found married couples
that have almost identical opinions on almost everything.
Plus take it from someone who has 4 children, when a child is
born they arrive already having a personality, and that personality
will determine of the influences the child choses to accept and
which ones the child will reject.
|
| 182.32 | | SCOMAN::OTENTI | | Mon Jan 18 1988 01:11 | 18 |
| The attitude that women have it so tough getting ahead (and men don't)
really bothers me. It implies that it 'so easy' for men to get ahead,
I've seen many, many, many men banging their heads against the wall to get
ahead with little, or no, results. It's tough to get ahead... period. What
bothers me is some women's implication that "if I was a man I'd be MUCH
further ahead than I am now".
I'm not as successful as I'd like to be but what success I have had came
at a very steep price, nothing came to me through the 'old boy' network. I
worked 50-60 hours per week to get where I am now, my sex had nothing to
do with it. I suspect all the hostility is little more than jealousy or
simply sour grapes. Let's face it, if you're not realizing your goals it's
a whole lot easier to blame someone/something rather than looking inside
yourself for the reason why.
ps. I'm not a woman so I can't say for sure if they *really* have it
harder but I know several men with outdated attitudes so I suspect
they *do* have it somewhat harder than the average guy.
|