Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    	Jim, I honestly wouldn't worry about all people ending up the
    	same.  No *two people* are exactly alike -- the chances of all
    	4 billion of us ending up alike are very slim.

    	When two people get together (whether they are of opposite
    	sex or not), there will be natural differences between them.
    
    	Why should we feel it necessary to lay down rules (men do xxxx,
    	women do yyyy)?  Why can't we just let people "do" whatever
    	comes the most natural to each person without putting artificial
    	limitations on what behavior is "appropriate" for them according
    	to sex?
    
    	In some heterosexual relationships, the men do all the cooking.
    	Why not?  If the men like to cook and their wives don't, it
    	makes sense for the men to do it.  
    
    	In my own marriage, my husband adored cooking (which was amazing
    	for an otherwise macho man, as far as I was concerned.)  I liked
    	to cook also, so we took turns and/or shared the chore.  We
    	would stay in the kitchen together and keep each other company
    	regardless of who was making what on any particular night. 
    	
    	I knew a wife in California who did all the car repairs in her
    	family.  Her specialty was brake jobs.  Her husband didn't do
    	anything at all with cars.  He was an E.E. and she was a F.S.
    	Engineer with DEC.  She also did economic car repairs for their
    	friends, too (and she was the best.)  She liked fixing cars.
    	Her husband didn't.  They were different people (but *EACH*
    	was unique in ways that were the most comfortable for that
    	person.)
    
    	If two individuals cannot just appreciate each other's unique
    	qualities without looking for some artificial "male/female"
    	differences, then perhaps they would find comfort in having
    	their behavioral roles all mapped out for them according to
    	sex.  
    
    	Not all of us find this necessary or even feasible anymore.
    	For those of us who would rather live our lives according
    	to our own unique identites (instead of pre-defined roles
    	for our particular sex), we will do just fine, thanks, and
    	I doubt if any of us will become confused about who we are
    	and which sex we are.
    
    	No, I don't think that we will end up a homogenized humanity.
    	All we are giving up is the "artificial roles" (and *NOT* our
    	identities as men and women.)  There *is* a difference between
    	the two.
    							Suzanne....

    	RE:  .2
    
    	Jim, you still make it sound as if we will ALL end up alike
    	(when you use the words "no generic differences.")

    	How can that possibly happen?  We are too diverse as individuals
    	to melt into one unisex personality.
    
    	All I'm saying is that I would like to be myself (and be mated
    	to a man who is *him*self) and would like for us to work out
    	our roles and our relationship together without feeling the
    	need to impose artificial differences based on sex.
    
    	There are probably many, many old male stereotype behaviors
    	that I will never have any desire to adopt (but there are most
    	likely just as many old female stereotype behaviors that I won't
    	adopt either.)  
    
    	There are plenty of other cultural differences within our species
    	to divide types of behaviors.  I don't see why we should feel
    	obligated to go against our own natures (at times) by adhering
    	to pre-determined roles based on sex.
    
    	I don't think there is any chance that we'll end up 4 billion
    	lookalike/actalike clones if we let go of male/female roles.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	P.S.  Mind you, I'm not at all talking about mandatory
    	unisex role-playing for all people.
    
    	I'm talking about everyone having a choice (and being
    	able to do things that *were* characteristically the behaviors
    	of the opposite sex.)  *IF* persons choose to do such things.
    
    	If anything, we'll all end up being *MORE* diverse as individuals
    	than we are now if we let go of male/female pre-defined roles.
    	
    							Suzanne...

    Reply to .2, Jim,
    
    Yeah, why not? We can explore that without harm.

    I agree with .5 very strongly.  
    

    I get the feeling sometimes that it's not "politically correct"
    to believe that there are *any* inherent differences between men
    and women. This bothers me on a number of levels. Besides the obvious
    gross physical differences, it seems to me that there *are* inherent
    differences. I'm quite comfortable with the notion that there are
    women trapped in men's bodies, and vice versa. Thus I'm entirely
    sympathetic with transsexuals situations.
    
    But if we grant that such a thing is possible, how can you tell?
    What is it that defines a woman, defines her so definitely that
    you can say "that is a woman in a man's body"? How can you distinguish
    that from a man who has chosen to behave in stereotypically feminine
    fashion, but still considers himself a man? Is it entirely self-image?
    
    I'm convinced that there must be some things that distinguish men
    from women, but any time I try to identify them I get frustrated.
    Perhaps it is because I'm still blinded by the physical reality,
    to the degree that if someone is genetically female, I automatically
    assume they must be a "woman", regardless of how they act.
    
    Gods, I can see it now! Given the trouble we've had with the term
    "feminist", I can just see us trying to define "feminine"! 
    
    "Feminist doesn't mean female supremacy!"
    "Just because you're a woman, doesn't mean you're feminine!"
    
    	Yow!
    	-- Charles

    	RE:  .7
        
    	There is nothing new at all about women being told they
    	are unfeminine if they choose to do things that have formerly
    	been done by men.  It is precisely the same thing as telling
    	a man who shows emotion that he is unmanly because of it.
    
    	A woman who takes on a job (or activities) that have traditionally
    	been done by men can be extremely FEMININE at the same time
    	(by her *own definition*.)
    
    	Why should someone else be allowed to look at external
    	traits (such as the job the woman does, or the activities the
    	woman likes to do, or clothes that the woman wears) and decide
    	that she is trying to be a man?  
    
    	Those are precisely the kinds of reasoning that have held women
    	down in the past.  ("No real woman would want to have a job
    	like that."  "No real woman would wear slacks."  "No real woman
    	would want to argue politics or watch football.")
   
    	True, there are some people who were *truly* born in the wrong
    	body, but that is something for the individual to decide.  It
    	is not something that our culture should decide (by defining
    	sexual roles so strictly that anyone who doesn't fit in must
    	necessarily be branded "unfeminine" or "unmasculine.")
    
    	People should be able to define their OWN femininity (and
    	masculinity) such that if individuals enjoy being women
    	and men (and wouldn't change it for the world), they should
    	be allowed to consider themselves feminine and masculine without
    	being subject to judgment by others.
    
    							Suzanne....

    I find this topic extremely interesting.  I have often wondered
    the same things as .0, but could never seem to put those questions
    in to words clearly enough to start a topic.
    
    I find the comments about "natural differences between *any* two people",
    etc., very interesting, especially in *this* file.  If people should
    be allowed to define their own roles, and there are no real inherent
    differences in a man's personality and a woman's, based on their
    gender, then why do we always see comments in this file like "I'm
    tired of a man always telling us what to do in this file", or "Should
    men still be allowed to participate", or "Men are *guests* here"?
    If People are people are people, why have Womannotes or Mennotes
    at all?
    
    Just wondering...
    Lynne
    
                                                                

    Re .9, I think it's obvious that we have Mennotes and Womannotes
    because men and women have been conditioned to be different in certain
    stereotyped ways.  We've been brainwashed into being different so
    we are different (most of us) in a lot of ways.  But, if we hadn't
    *been brainwashed* to accept certain roles we might not have
    differences due to which sex we are.
    
    In answer to the original question, the only difference that I can
    think of valuing in the opposite sex, which is exclusive to the
    opposite sex, is the physical difference (for romantic purposes).
     Anything else I could think of such as stronger or taller so they
    could help me do something could also be true for another woman.
     But, because of the way we have been conditioned by society I usually
    "use" men for things like that.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re .10 and being brainwashed - I knew when I entered .9 that someone
    would blame it all on society and being brainwashed.  For me, that's
    not a valid point because, first, I don't think I *was* brainwashed
    (this is not to say that others were not), and second, that when
    a person replies to a note, how does anyone else reading the note
    know whether that person *was* "brainwashed", or if that person's
    opinions come as a natural result of their sex?
    
    And don't files like Mennotes and Womennotes sort of help to propagate
    any brainwashing that has already occurred?  This isn't meant as
    a put-down - just some random thoughts that go thru my mind once
    in a while as I read this file....   At first, I didn't really like
    this file, because I thought "People are people" and I didn't think
    I consciously treated anyone differently because of their sex. 
    But then I thought "But there *are* differences between men & women",
    differences that I think are *natural and necessary*, but don't ask
    me to list what they are!   (Besides the *obvious* of course). 
    :-)                                                 
    
    Lynne
    

    	RE:  .11
    
    	Lynne, I didn't get the impression that Lorna meant that you,
    	in particular, were brainwashed (but that we have *ALL* been
    	influenced by our culture to be different, per our particular
    	sex.)
    
    	I'm sure that in our own lifetimes, we will always see general
    	behavioral differences (very, very general) between the sexes,
    	but the point that I've been trying to make is that those
    	differences need *NOT* be artificially imposed as if there is
    	some *DANGER* to our culture if men and women become more alike
    	in succeeding generations.
    
    	What worries me most is that when/if traits are set aside as
    	male *OR* female, how many of the traits that are necessary
    	for women as heads of households and breadwinners will be
    	labeled "unfeminine."
    
    	What could possibly be the danger in allowing the vauluable
    	traditional traits of men *and* women to be shared by both
    	sexes?  Not as a mandatory practice, but as the choices of
    	individuals?
    
    	Heterosexual love is not at risk here.  But, we don't need
    	artificial external reminders to know what lies beneath men
    	and women (and what kind of satisfying emotional and physical
    	relationships a heterosexual person can enjoy with a person
    	of opposite sex.)  I doubt that men and women's bodies will
    	grow to be the same just because we find we can blend together
    	behaviorally in many ways.
    
    							Suzanne...

    The difference I value is also the romantic/sexual physiological
    one.  I love also the fact that one of the two of us can actually
    produce new people.  These are the only true, genetic differences
    I have observed so far.  All the differences that exist between
    the way my husband and I tend to operate in the world I have discovered
    to be 99% influenced by training and social conditioning.  And so,
    even though they are differences, they are not innate--and I don't
    think they have relevance in my answer.
    
    What am I talking about when I speak of differences in training?
    One difference I valued my husband for for years was his mathematical
    ability.  Comes in handy with finances, checkbooks, etc.  This
    "difference" is one I have heard touted in more than one study of
    sex differences.  Well, it turned out, when Dave and I got around
    to exchanging that part of our life's stories, _we both_ had trouble
    with mathematics as youngsters.  Both of stumbled through algebra.
    It just didn't come naturally.  But Dave was given extra tutoring
    to help him overcome his clumsiness, while I was patted on the head
    by my mom and teachers and told, "that's alright, you're a girl,
    you don't need to know these things anyway."

    When I realized this, I gritted my teeth and started to learn how
    to handle numbers.  I am now, much to my surprise, pretty good at
    it.
    
    One other difference I have heard touted by sex difference studies
    is that women are more naturally nurturant, natural caretakers. 
    I happen to have been fortunate to grow up with an extremely nurturant
    father.  Way ahead of his time, that man.  You may say, "well, he
    obviously must have had extreme counter-cultural training" but the
    fact was, when I began to discover details of his young life--he
    didn't.  Very much the opposite, in fact; brought up by a Baptist
    preacher father who did the stick-in-one-hand-Bible-in-the-other
    act.  Neither his mother nor his father were very nurturant people.
    I think that caring for his family was one of his life's great joys
    because it allowed him an outlet for an innate talent that the rest
    of society would have considered unmanly.
    
    These myths of sex differences Jim, I am not looking to perpetuate
    or value at all.
    
    I might turn the question around a little bit and ask: what differences
    do you _perceive_ between the sexes, do you value them, and do you
    _really_think_ they are genetic or the product of training?  Do you
    really want to value someone for something (and thereby perhaps
    force him or her into a role (s)he doesn't want) that is solely
    the product of training?  Let's talk about differences we've observed
    (like the ones I described above) and reflect on this.  It's a serious
    question; I certainly value many people for the training they've
    received, and I benefit thereby.  But when their training and skills
    become excuses for my not learning, when I say, "Thank heavens _I_
    don't have to do that, it's all being taken care of," then I have
    to seriously question my personal integrity.
    
    The question I now confront myself with is, "Well, Man X in my life
    has this skill, and I certainly adore the fact that he does; am
    I honest and strong enough to let him be my teacher rather than
    my crutch?"  I _never_ assume anymore that if a man has a skill
    I don't that it means I can never learn it by virtue of my sex.

    Marcia

    Re .11, I agree there are differences between men and women.  I
    really think that we have all been brainwashed to various degrees
    as to what is considered masculine and what's considered feminine.
     Some women or men may overcome this, but they still know that they
    are overcoming something.
    
    I, personally, think there may be some "natural" differences between
    the sexes.  But, I've gotten into some arguments over thinking that.
    
    We've been brainwashed so long it's difficult to tell sometimes
    what characteristic is natural to us and what's the result of
    brainwashing.  For example, pink really *is* my favorite color.
     I really do hate football.  Talk about cars or sports bores me
    out of my mind.  I hate guns.  In high school I hated math, science
    and gym.  I loved english, history and art. I love lacey, feminine
    clothes, perfume, jewelry, and shopping.  As a child I loved dolls.  Am
    I brainwashed or is that the *real* me?  Who will ever know?  If I was
    brainwashed into being a feminine creature it happened so long ago that
    by this time it's the real me.
    
    I think men have been conditioned to act in certain ways in society
    and women to respond in certain ways.  I know I'm sick of a lot
    of those ways, and would like to see changes.  I think this file
    is valuable because it gives me a chance to discuss this with others.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, I agree that there are physiological differences. To agree
    to that is kind of like saying gravity's OK. :-)
    
    The qualities of soul which I find attractive and positive, I would
    find attractive and positive in either gender. Likewise, those
    qualities which I find unattractive and negative.
    
    
    Charles - re: transexual(ism?).  Doesn't the feeling of being "trapped
    in the body of [the opposite gender] <reword alert - say "couldn't">
    that feeling be due to the individual's having to act in ways which
    are contrary to their internal instincts, but which are ways prescribed
    by the socialization which they undergo?
    
    I'm looking at this from the point of view of "Isn't it a shame
    that people have to undergo surgery, drug therapy, etc. so they
    can act in ways which are natural to them but "unnatural" to the
    society?"
    
    I don't know any transexuals, and my knowledge in this area is limited,
    but I do have the feeling that some of these situations are created
    by expectations fo ceratin gender-specific behaviours, which are
    not "nature" , but "nuture".
    
    IS this possibly an extension of the saying that "the only
    gender-specific jobs are wet-nurse and sperm-donor"??
    
    --DE
    

    I don't think we are ever going to come up with a list of innate
    difference between adult men and women other than body shape, because
    I don't think these innate differences you are looking for really
    exist, or, if they do, they are conpletely swamped by the differences
    between individual men and women.  I think that the "Valuing
    Differences" program ought to be more aimed at valuing people as
    unique individuals rather than as various pigeon-holes - of course,
    in an effort to "do *something*" it is a lot easier to plan a program
    on a Jewish holiday, an ethnic tradition, or some other sort of
    "group-oriented" thing than to try to teach people to respect each
    other as individuals - and it makes for a better "show" anyhow.
    
    Of course (I was having this discussion a few days ago with one
    of the senior MALE engineers in my group), it may be different in
    an organization which seems to have a lot of interpersonal
    discrimination problems, and there may be areas in DEC where this
    sort of stuff still happens.  We decided that there is a need for
    people to learn to value each other as members of groups before
    they can learn to value each other as individuals.  Engineering
    here (in HLO) may be further along than some areas since we have
    a wide variety of "groups" represented here (although there are
    very few blacks - not to jump to the conclusion that black people
    do not or can not study engineering, though!) so that we all end
    up learning about individual men and women of widely differing
    backgrounds.
    
    /Charlotte

    I think there *are* some biological differences between men and
    women.
    
    For one thing, women can have babies - men can't, although only
    men can father the babies.
    
    Men are (as a group - there are individual exceptions) larger and
    stronger than women.  This makes them more suited for occupations
    which require a lot of strenght.  I believe (this has been brought
    up before, and disputed) that women have more ability at things
    which require manual dexterity - especially where small objects
    are concerned.
    
    The rest of it I believe to be societal conditioning - nurturance,
    liking or disliking sports, being good or not good at math, english,
    science, history, etc., enjoying cars or not, and all of the rest
    of it.
    
    I would be interested in knowing more about why transexuals feel
    trapped in a wrong-sex body.  Other than societal expectations,
    what is the difference between having your body as it is, or having
    as it is, but opposite sex?
    
    Elizabeth                  

    RE: .15
    
    > I'm looking at this from the point of view of "Isn't it a shame
    > that people have to undergo surgery, drug therapy, etc, so they
    > can act in ways which are natural to them but "unnatural" to the
    > society?"
    
    Dawn perhaps the people who decide on a sex change do so because
    they are pretty much "traditionalists" who are stuck in a body of
    the "wrong" gender.
    
    By this I mean, for example, a "born-male" person, who loves to
    wear "women's" clothes, who sees himself in a relationship being
    married to a man, who has absolutely no identification with maleness, 
    except by a biological accident. 
    
    "He" does not see himself as a male, having "female" qualities.
    Rather, "he" sees himself as a "she". He does not want to "dress
    up" as a woman; he wants to "dress" as a woman. "He" does not
    want to be a "female half" in a male/male homosexual relationship
    (or perhaps even more confusing, the male-body-female-personality
    partner in a female homosexual union); "he" wants to be a female 
    in a male/female heterosexual pairing.
    
    Anything less than that, for him, would equate to "playing" female.
    And he no longer wants to have to *play* "she". "He" wants to *be*
    "she".
    
      Alan
          

    How about a thought experiment. Imagine yourself in a body of the
    opposite sex. Imagine in detail, all the little physical things that
    distinguish men from women. Think about how you would feel in a body of
    the opposite sex. Image that that'the body you have now and forever. 
    
    Do you feel uncomfortable? If so, then you have a "gender identify"
    that is consistent with your physical sex. Lucky you! Do you feel
    comfortable, does this fantasy appeal to you, perhaps more than your
    actual physical situation? Too bad! 
    
    Now imagine spending your entire life KNOWING that you were a woman,
    your entire identity bound up in the fact that you were a woman, but in
    a man's body. 
    
    How utterly AWFUL.
    
    It's my understanding that it is ENTIRELY a matter of self image.
    
    Now personally I would relish the opportunity to be able to change sex
    at will. I *love* John Varley's stories on the subject. I want to live
    in his world! But try another thought experiment. If you could *choose*
    your sex, not through crude surgical means, but actually and completely
    *be* whichever sex you chose, what sex would you be? How often? Would
    you prefer one over the other? Why? 
    
    I don't know, but I'd love to find out! In any case, I can well believe
    that there are people who WOULD have strong preferences for one or the
    other, and that some of those people may currently be in bodies of the
    wrong sex. 
    
    How about a slightly different case. You have a one time opportunity to
    be whichever sex you like, but once you choose you're stuck with it for
    the rest of your life. Which do you choose? Why? Can't you imagine
    people who would switch? Why? 
    
    How about in a "perfect" society where sex roles were all by choice and
    no one was put down for their choice of behaviors? Would you still make
    the same choice? 
    
	-- Charles

    I've been thinking about this question, and I can't seem to find a
    particular difference that I value in any of the particular men I know
    as friends (or colleagues) that I wouldn't value just as much if he
    were a woman instead! What I mean is that I tend to have friends of
    both genders with all types of backgrounds, interests, abilities,
    talents, and beliefs and I tend not to consciously differentiate
    whether the friend is a man or a woman. I value strong people and enjoy
    friends who have enough similarities to me so that we have a common
    ground to start from and a given comfort level, but with enough
    differences so that we can learn from each other and grow within our
    friendship. 
    
    If pressed, I might say that although I'm fairly strong physically,
    I do appreciate the stronger arms and backs that my male friends
    might volunteer to carry or move a particularly heavy item. I'm
    not assuming that all men are stronger than all women, but I do
    have several male friends who are stronger than I am!
    
    On the other hand, I might say that I tend to be able to have more
    open conversations about emotions and relationships with more of
    my female friends than my male friends. However, some of my male
    friends are very open about these topics!! And I used to find it
    very difficult to express my inner feelings. It took a lot of work
    for me to be as open as I am, and I still have lot's of work to
    do on this.
    
    I guess my point is I'm not sure if the differences I see in the
    men I know are because they're men (innate?) or just because they're
    different from me.
    

Hey, I'm not grinding an axe, I just have some dumb questions to ask...

RE: .3

I guess, that yes, I do have a feeling that we will end up "all alike", but now
that Ithink about it, I think that it's more likely that we will end up at the
other extreme: all *different*.  And I'm not convinced that that is altogether a
great idea either... 

The more people are different, the harder it is to communicate and understand.
Without ***any*** kind of standardized role model for male, female, or even
human, will we psychologically differientiate the human race into subraces?

Im suppose that I shouldn't worry too much about that...  Are we really going to
create any moredifferientation then evolution and isolation have created in the
past?

RE: .2

Are there any *good* "stereotyped behaviors"?

RE: .8

I am not in the least suggesting anything like labelling women as unfeminine if
they do things formerly done by men.  What I am saying is what will happen to
the meanings of the woreds "feminine" and "masculine" if there is no longer
"things that men do", and "things that women do"?

RE: .9

Because we arn't there yet?? :-)

RE: .13

What sexual differences do *I* think that there are?  Well, I'm pretty sure of
the sexual differences...  And I think that yes, females *do* have an edge
(because of the difference in bearing children) in nuturing.  That is a
difference that I value.  I believe that the subtler physical differences give
one sex of the other an edge in one area or another.

I can't think of any more differences that I believe in, but I definitely do
believe that men and women *are* different in more then theprimary and
secondary sexual differences. 

RE: .15

Re transsexuals:  Interesting idea...  Beats me...

RE: .19

I've thought about it a lot... I don't think I'd have any problem being female.
But then I don't really have any problem being male, either...  What does then
mean?  That I'm psychologically bisexual?  Or would it be asexual??? 

Jim.

    	RE:  .21
    
    	Jim, I realize that it would be a lot easier to communicate
    	if we could peg people according to things like sex, race,
    	and creed (and it is infinitely harder to treat all humans
    	as individuals who deserve or do not deserve respect according
    	to their own deeds and not according to the nature of their
    	genitals or the color of their skin.)
    
    	But...  that's just the way it's going to have to be if women
    	(and other minorities) are going to receive equitable treatment
    	in our culture.
    
    	It may seem equitable to *some* to say, "Well, women have the
    	edge in nurturing" and "Men have the edge in careers" -- but
    	that is not equitable *at all* if you happen to be a woman
    	trying to have a career (or a man trying to obtain custody
    	of his children.)
    
    							Suzanne...

I'm convinced that men are better at raking leaves.  It must be a
physical difference since raking is very difficult (and in only minutes
painful) for me to do.  So let's just decree that only men should rake
leaves.  I'll help bag them.

..Karen

    When you don't rake the leaves in my neighborhood, dead grass, angry
    neighbors and bugs in the spring are the NATURAL result   8^{).

    Dick

    ah, my parents were clever when they bought their house.  Although
    it boasts a lovely Norway Maple that must be cleaned up after (but
    it's worth it, it turns such a lovely shade of red)...all the rest
    of the trees are either Birch or Locust...and the leaves just dry
    up and blow off into the woods.
    
    I think when I build my house it will be surrounded by pines...pine
    needles make a lovely carpet.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .27
    
    Gack!  Hold on, Jody.  If you value your sanity (and hate raking)
    *do not* go for (most) pines.  I remember moving into our house
    on Evergreen Rd. (how idyllically perfect, thought I); the gorgeous
    lawn was surrounded by beautiful, well-behaved pines; and though
    it was December, I could tell that the pines would provide marvelous
    shade for the pool over which they hung.
    
    The following (and every subsequent) spring, summer, and fall I
    discovered the true, evil, lawn-poisoning nature of the standard
    pine needle and just how much money the previous owner had dished
    out to make the lawn look nice (in order to sell the house) and
    make it look as if it is a swimming pool instead of the giant
    bowl of pine needle soup that it *really* is.
    
    I hang on to what few threads of sanity I have left by realizing
    a) there are, in fact, well-behaved trees on the planet (e.g. 
    Spruces), and b) in a few years I'll spend some money to make
    the lawn look nice so I can sell the place to the next 
    victi. . .er, nature lover.
    
    Steve
    

    no, Steve, you don't understand...I'd want pines w/needles instead
    of a lawn...no raking, no mowing, no nothing...and no gypsy moth
    caterpillars defoliating my property (we've had quite a bit o' trouble
    with them in Eastern Ma. over the past N years).  Also, getting
    pine needles out of a pool is a nightmare (and the filters probably
    don't like 'em either)...so I guess the pool will just have to be
    indoor :-) !
    
    
    -Jody
    

    Gad, Jody!  What a great idea!  One giant bed of pine needles!
    Best idea I've heard of since Astroturf.
    
    Steve
    

            <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 532.23     What differnces do you value in the opposite sex?       23 of 23
PARSEC::THOMPSON "Copyright (c) 1987, Eagles Inc."  157 lines   4-NOV-1987 12:39
                      -< a_FRIEND_of_the_Opposite_Sex_? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: 532.0     What differences do you value in the opposite sex?

	Sex Appeal is a wonderful quality!  And to find a real
friend is even more wonderful.  Wouldn't it be ideal to have a
real friend who was sexually appealing?  That could be valued!

> In Our quest for equality between the sexes,

	There always was and probably always will be one area of
IN_equality between the sexes.  Women bear children and men don't.
If we would just focus on that difference and build around it such
that pregnant women can be treated appropriately WHILE THEY ARE
PREGNANT ... and treated like regular Human Beings the rest of the
time there should be no real problems.

> are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

	Given that there are already too many babies being born
it should be less of a problem in the future since fewer women
will need to be pregnant fewer times in order to maintain enough
population for an orderly world civilization.  For all practical
purposes we can almost forget the "baby" problem entirely.  The
remaining problem is _raising_ these children and shaping their
ideal for the changing world they will have to adapt to.  What
do we know of our own world situation - much less of the future?

> Are we asking for a homogenized humanity,
> where gender/sex is irrelevent?

	Eagles have no idea what group is intended by "Our quest"
and who is the "we" asking for a homogenized humanity.  As others
point out the world is not made up of men and women and blacks
and wasps as much as of individuals - no two identical and most
of them proud and self-righteous in their unique individualism.
And except for the question of making babies, sex/gender always
was irrelevant until someone chooses to make a big deal about it.

> Are we looking to make all men women, or all women men?

	There's that "we" again ...  Nobody can make anybody change
so the best it gets is how can we shape the attitudes of successive
generations.  Men have had some historic advantages and women have
been socially conditioned to view themselves as wives/mothers whose
contribution is toward the home/family.  These traditional roles and
the former reverence for home/family are no longer satisfying to
most women or to all men.  Nothing better has yet become the accepted
conventional wisdom in the United States.  So we argue and debate.

> Or somewhere in between?

	If you are asking should the next generation adopt a Unisex
life-style ...  to some extent they already are doing that.  Some of
the wiser women are adopting a conservative behavior pattern that
says they try for every advantage while keeping whatever power they
possess by virtue of the male weakness for secondary sexual attributes
such as wearing high heels and nylons to meetings and job interviews.

	We are "somewhere in between" because men still have a lot of
power and control and they still tend to hire and promote women whom
they see as an asset to their business empire.  In most cases this
means women still "dress for sexcess" and men still value sex-appeal.
As the joke goes, *most* women still spend more money on their wardrobe
than on books because *most* men can still SEE better than they can THINK.

> What *differences* between the opposite sex and your sex do you value

	Most men are still over-assertive and lack style.  Women can
still be valued for the beauty and sensitivity to the feelings of
others that they often bring to the work-place.  And because there is
still doubt among *most* men that they are worthy co-workers, they tend
to try harder.  This makes men try harder in order to compete with them
and is an excellent motivational side-effect.

> (no offense to homosexuals,

	Why go to the trouble to worry about offending persons with
homosexual preferences in this topic?  If your thesis asks about generic
person-behavior in the work-place and movement toward a Unisex life-style,
it would appear to benefit homosexual life-styles as much (or as little)
as any other segment of humanity.  As far as this goes it seems to be
about public behavior and private behavior will as always be between
the persons involved and pointless to discuss in this digital conference.

re: .8      -< ... decide what constitutes "feminine" and "masculine"? >-
        
>	There is nothing new at all about women being told they
>	are unfeminine if they choose to do things that have formerly
>	been done by men.  It is precisely the same thing as telling
>	a man who shows emotion that he is unmanly because of it.

	As this fits into the .0 question(s) ...  it seems there is
NO REASON why any individual has to change personality traits of old
beliefs as long as there are enough influential individuals with some
"feminine" and some "masculine" traits in any business organization.
The important point isn't that any one person BE a strong role-player
in either direction as long as the co-workers listen to the different
viewpoints when deciding on policy and planning courses of action.

re: Lynne

>   If People are people ... why have Womannotes or Mennotes at all?

	We here at Digital are working to earn money doing something
we enjoy more than another job/company.  The value (if any) of Notes
should be to allow people to work out differences in such a way that
we end up working better together as a corporation.  Once the problems
and differences get resolved, Notes will tend to expire as they no
longer serve a purpose to the corporation.  While Womannotes and such
seems useful in this decade what point will it serve when women are
treated just like "one of the guys" and they get paid equivalent wages?

>   And don't files like Mennotes and Womennotes sort of help
>   to propagate any brainwashing that has already occurred?

	Well, Lynne ...  until the whole society works out some decent
role-models for working parents with oand without partners and finds a
workable social and business resolution for what attitudes and behavior
produces the "right" results ... and what results are "right" ...  BOTH
men and women are reluctant to drop old role-models when there is no
agree-upon better replacements.  Men keep wondering aloud if it's still
acceptable to be macho while women wonder aloud if sex-appeal doesn't
still have some use in their individual lives.

	We are comfortable with our beliefs and less comfortable with
the current state of dynamic change which has yet to be validated by
our individual or collective experience.

re: .22

> not equitable *at all* if you happen to be a woman trying to have a career
> (or a man trying to obtain custody of his children.)

	Our "problem" is that society changes slowly and we see our
personal lives being "held back" because the rest of humanity doesn't
support our newest life-styles.  And what we seem to forget is that
much of tradition and conventional wisdom was what worked well in a
world much different from our own today.  Even while we work at change
the very meaning of "career" and "custody of children" changes around
us.  And like the basis of Shere Hite's latest book ... we aren't able
to see the "truth" for an entire population ...  but only the "truth"
as it affects us as individuals.

	Many of us over-40 males with corner-offices have nothing that
can be called a "career".  We merely sell our hours and experience to
the highest bidder and hope there will be a "next job" after the current
one becomes obsolete by technology.  And with everyone working at least
one full-time job to make ends meet ... children tend to spend more of
their days in schools and child-care institutions anyway.  What does it
mean to have "custody" other than providing a "home-like environment"
during evenings and weekends?  And these days doesn't TV take up most
of those children's hours anyway?

	We are a society in rapid transition from what worked for our
ancestors to what seems to fail to work for everybody according to the
media reports and current literature.

	~--e--~  Eagles_Wonder_Who_Wants_This_New_Sexless_Life  <sdt>

    
    
    
    He squashes any errant crickets.
    
    I rescue any 'lost' spiders (and take them outside to safety).
    
                     Deb
    

Re .0:    
    > Are we asking for a homogenized humanity, where gender/sex is
    > irrelevent?  Are we looking to make all men women, or all women men?  Or
    > somewhere in between?
    
    I agree with the earlier replies that focus more on roles.  What
    we need is a freedom from roles assigned by gender.  We don't need
    to force all people to be the same.  We just have to stop forcing
    all people of the same gender to be the same.
    
    I believe that there are differences between the sex's that extend
    far beyond the obvious visible ones.  If natural selection can create
    so many drastic differences between the sexes on the physical level
    it seems impossible to me that inside we are all the same.  I believe
    that we have lived in similar gender divided roles for long enough
    so that some traits worked their way into the gene pool.  Traits
    that fit well into the social structure were more likely to reproduce.
    
    I don't think that the genetic differences between the sexes should
    require anywhere near the amount of sex-role structure that we currently
    use.  The advantage of roles is that the tasks that noone wants
    to perform are assigned to one or another role.  If we free ourselves
    from these roles, will anyone choose to do those important but
    unpopular jobs?  As it is now, many women are deciding not to have
    children because of dedication to their career.  Would men go off
    to war if it were not defined as part of their role?   Who will
    do these jobs?  What kind of structure can we invent to take the
    place of the sex-roles?
    
    					MJC

    Lets not invent any new structure.  Perhaps men would not go off
    to war if this were not viewed as one of their roles but then perhaps
    war is stupid and men have been used and taken advantage of for
    far too long.  Why can't everyone just do what they want to do?

        (Sorry this is a bit late--I'm recently back from a two and a
        half week vacation. I'm 900 notes behind.) 
        
        Over the years I've thyought my way through Charles's thought
        experiment a number of times. My conclussion is that that I am
        much more intrinsically heterosexual than intrinsically male in
        my "gender identity".
        
        I wouldn't have much of a problem with being a woman for the
        rest of my life. I'd probably enjoy it. This tells me I don't
        have a very strong "gender identity". On the other hand, I really
        enjoy being male, and I have no sexual interest in men. If I
        imagine myself as a female, it is as a woman who is just as
        intensly interested in men as I now am in women. So from
        that perspective it seems I do have a strong gender identity
        as a heterosexual.
        
        I really enjoy heterosexuality a lot, but I don't have a
        terribly strong commitment to which side of the game I get to
        play. Homosexuality doesn't repulse me or anything. It just
        isn't anything that I have an interest in or even can identify
        with very well. I can--and have in dreams, fantasies and thought
        experiments--imagine myself as a woman. I can't really make the
        notion of being a transexual--trapped in a wrong sex body--real
        to me, nor can I picture myself, with any conviction, as either
        type of homosexual. I can understand in an abstract way that
        others may feel that way, but I don't identify with or feel that
        I understand it.
        
        Anyway, it is a fascinating thought experiment.
        
        JimB.
        
        PS: Right on! Death to grass! Pine needles over all!