| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 606.1 | 12 year old perspectives | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Dec 20 1987 16:06 | 58 |
| Alas, it all comes out...
I think each sex is it's own worst enemy. In the sea of thoughts
(noter exchanges) how we respect and treat one another is the
bottom line. Also the first line. And the middle.
Lord only knows where we develop our ideas, thoughts and actions.
I think a note like 571.53-4 ought to clear the way for a higher
level of arguementative Quality between ALL of US. If not, Perhaps
I should punt out now.
> Identifying patterns of answers by the sex of the answers..
.54 HEARD and SAW SOMETHING in that lengthy note. If I may say
so, .53 reached somebody. Sexism ... Runs DEEP WITHIN US ALL.
Inaccuracy, plagues US ALL. In m/notes, I am guilty of Premature
speculations/premises/conclusions, etc in notes 178.0 (attitude+
character), 182.16, (sexual ineq is..). Corrections were later
made, but better to sit on one's hands for a day, than to....
Today's correction... answerers^above7up.
We choose our mate; the mutual bond should have each sex
dynamically equal in relation to the other, irrespective of
unique individual differences. The decisions/actions of that
partnership should be roughly equal in intellectual honesty
and emotional maturity. Children should be taught the finest
of values by both sexes. Period. An imbalance in the Quality
of a Good Education by one parent or another, must yield some
sort of negative consequences in the TYPE of THINGS that a
Child (of either sex) BELIEVES IN. Poor teaching, a troubled
child. Probably. Very Probably. 182 MENNOTES is starting to
Explore the kinds of input (teaching) that children receive
from their parents in their formative years.
I imagine each sex does the best it can, in the raising of
their children. That is an assumption. Many noters are looking
for MUCH MORE in the way of SPECIFICS, regarding any + all
teachings to children. Different teachings can lead to possible
different consequences... For instance, how (possibly) separate
are the PATHWAYS that a boy and girl TAKE into ADULTHOOD?
Are the 2 (possibly different) paths good ones for each sex to
take IN. For example, might a girl of 12, perhaps get the idea
(parent,TV,etc) that MAYBE a Career can be not all too important
if she meets a Well to Do Man. This is a famous Stereotype, but
might the (possible) IDEA, more likely form in her MIND than the
boys? A boy (I would think), knows that he will almost CERTAINLY
be working In Outside World Business, For the rest of His LIFE.
I am curious... just what might happen to a 12 year old girl,
if she HEARS, that possibly, she may NOT Have to WORK outside
the HOME, all her Life. I am curious if that IDEA might ...mmmm
harbor in her mind, .... for a longer Period of Time, than it
should. What might be some possible consequences of a 12 year
old girl, NOT TOTALLY EXPECTING that she'll have to support her-
self (Career-business wk) for life? Any possibilities that her
view of the World MAY start to change, in comparison to a 12
year old boy? Development. Drive. Plans. Education. Career. And
perhaps the various psychological processes that might be affected
by (possibly) harboring such IDEA, beyond a reasonable point in
time. In short, what is the makeup of a 12 year old boy and girl?
Russ
|
| 606.2 | Not until *twelve*?!? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Dec 21 1987 14:34 | 53 |
| Twelve! Not until age twelve?! What context-free society were
*you* lucky enough to be brought up in?
When I was four years old, I slashed my knee open on a piece of
broken glass. The doctor who sewed me up remarked to my parents,
whom he knew well, "She's going to have a lot of trouble catching
a husband with that [ugly, scar-defaced] knee." (This freed me
from worrying about narrowing my sights down to getting married;
I could point to someone who had smashed a beer bottle against a
tree in a public park.)
I saw a zillion images while growing up of boys being active and
girls being passive, of men holding real jobs and women being "just"
housewives. From my first books: _Cinder_the_Cat_ had a police*man*
and fire*men*; it was the man of the household who awoke, sprang
up, threw up the sash, and watched _A_Visit_from_St._Nickolaus_;
and _The_Pied_Piper_of_Hamlin_ was male, as were the town leaders,
and the one interesting child whom I remember.
When did it start? Was it started by "female intellectuals"? Here's
a passage from a book on the history of various religions, last
revised in 1927, written by a man with no noticable interest in
women's rights, or anything like that:
We have further a whole collection of apocryphal Acts of various
Apostles.... The most attractive of these stories is that of
Thekla. This young girl, a member of a good family at Iconium,
was converted by the teaching of Paul, left her family, braved
all sorts of dangers, and ended by successfully preaching
Christianity at Iconium and Seleucia. Tertullian tells us (circa
200) that this story was fabricated by an elder of Asia Minor,
who, when convicted of the fraud, confessed that he had
perpetrated it "for love of St. Paul." However, that confession
of a pious fraud is rather suspicious; maybe it was invented
to discredit a little work embodying very ancient elements,
but where the Church was scandalized by the story of a girl
who freely preached and baptized.
There were very few intellectuals in the first century, and even
fewer of them were women. (Name one.) The author speaks of the
possibility of censorship from the background of fifty years as
a highly respected historian and archaeologist. If he believed
that limiting knowledge of the existance of active independant
women was common enough to be a likely explanation, then it was.
If he believed that it was the sort of thing that the Fathers (sic)
of the Christian Church would do, then it was.
Having eliminated the idea of female intellectuals promulgating
these ideas some TWO THOUSAND years ago, I believe that pointing
to historians who have pointed to the continuation of these ideas
and practices over the past two millenia should be sufficient.
Ann B.
|
| 606.3 | Argh | VINO::EVANS | | Mon Dec 21 1987 16:36 | 11 |
| So all of our problems with sexism are due, not only to women,
but to *intelligent* women!
Presumably, the lesson here is that we need to be less intelligent,
girls!
<There is *NO* smiley face icon to express my feelings. There are
probably not enuff keys on the keyboard to make one from.>
--DE
|
| 606.4 | Hmmph | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Mon Dec 21 1987 16:59 | 19 |
| Sorry, but I am going to flame a bit. I will revise/delete/add
later, when calmness has been reached.
<sarcasm on FULL>
Women are responsible for men beating their wives and children.
Uh-huh. Women are responsible for men raping. Sure. It's women's
fault that men are SOOOOO overwhelmed with our bodies that they feel
FORCED to whistle and make cat-calls at us when we walk down the
street. Right.
<sarcasm off>
It's times like this when I wish Sandy C would speak up. She is very
good at putting the anger into coherent arguments, especially when I am
SOOO aghast at what I read that I am at a loss for words...
Sandy? Where are you?
Lee
|
| 606.5 | | CADSE::GLIDEWELL | | Mon Dec 21 1987 23:02 | 10 |
| Wolfgang Pauli, the physicist, was asked to evaluate a paper written
by an extremely untalented physicist. After he read it, he just shrugged
his shoulders and said, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
That's my reaction to the excerpt. Its categories are cut-out dolls
propped up by Big Notions.
Meigs
Yo anon noter. Who wrote it?
|
| 606.6 | What a bunch of malarkey! | OPHION::KARLTON | Phil Karlton, Western Software Lab | Tue Dec 22 1987 00:53 | 17 |
| Re: .0 from anon
What was the name of the book? Who wrote it? What difference does
it make?
If the subject matter were not so serious, I would find this one
of the sillier things said in this notes file. Let me try paraphrasing
the thesis.
Over the past x-hundred years, there has been explicit conspiracy
by intellectual women to make men dominate them. This was the only
way they could be prevented from having the opportunity to do yucky
things like taking responsibilty for their own lives.
Well, if it's in a book it must be true.
PK
|
| 606.7 | Where's the proof | PAGAN::VALENTINE | | Tue Dec 22 1987 14:12 | 13 |
|
RE. 0
Provide the name of the source you are using. By an "intelligent"
"woman"? If the book was written by such an author why do you refrain
from providing the title?
Provide the sources that are used to base the book's thesis.
Why should we spend time disputing a claim that hasn't be fully
stated? Why is so much time being spent defending and taking shots
at feminism rather than building upon a feminist philosophy? Who
benefits?
|
| 606.9 | An Annotation | CADSE::GLIDEWELL | Peel me a grape, Tarzan | Wed Dec 23 1987 01:10 | 24 |
| .0 > "... the women of the American Women's Liberation movement ...
> direct all their time and energy against the wrong enemy ...
> their only allies, men, ..."
> Anon "... from a very intelligent woman."
No, she isn't. The writer is a dunderhead.
The movement has directed its "time and energy" against laws, institutions,
and social conventions that are unfair to women. The movement has not
directed anything against men, nor does it regard men as the "enemy." The
statement is just plain wrong. WRONG. (aka The Big Lie for you hot heads.)
The phrase "their only allies, men" is goofy. It implies that women who are
not in the movement are not allies, while stating that "men" -- without any
qualifier -- are allies. This statement is also just plain wrong. WRONG.
(An extra irritation about this phrase: I think the writer simply
overlooked women who are not feminists. Click. Or perhaps mentioning them
would have interferred with her prose and her "enemy" scenario.)
If the passage were a physical object, I wouldn't want to step in it.
If this dunderhead were a doctor instead of a writer, she would be
in jail for voodoo. Meigs
|
| 606.10 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Dec 23 1987 16:26 | 14 |
| Re .9:
While I tend to agree that the woman's movement does not single
out men as the enemy I believe a lot of (most?) men believe the woman's
movement is anti-male. My belief is based on conversations held
with men and women in various countries.
If a lot of (most?) men believe the woman's movement is anti-male
then the movement is, at least for them for there is no truth beyond
individual understanding for the individual.
Badly worded! Hope the idea is clearer than the words.
Douglas
|
| 606.11 | Pro-Woman <> Anti-Male | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | | Wed Dec 23 1987 17:42 | 30 |
|
<== .10
I think the notion that if a lot of men believe the woman's movement
is anti-male, then it is (as least for them) is an interesting one.
But consider this way of looking at that same idea:
If a lot of men and women *describe* the woman's movement as being
anti-male instead of pro-woman then the following can happen:
o Some women who really do support the work of the women's
movement worry about being seen as anti-male, and they
keep their true feelings hidden.
o Some men who really do support the work of the women's
movement are influenced by the rhetoric of those
who describe the pro-woman movement as anti-male,
and the potential allies keep their true feelings
hidden.
So describing the woman's movement as anti-male can be of great
benefit to those who worry about women and men working together
for social change. The challenge for those of us in the movement
is to avoid allowing others to describe our movement in their terms.
In Sisterhood,
Justine
|
| 606.13 | Off on a tangent | WCSM::PURMAL | Oh, the thinks you can think! | Wed Dec 23 1987 19:13 | 12 |
| I'm not sure where this belongs, but note .10 has triggered
a reaction that occurs often when I'm reading WOMANNOTES. Every
time I read a note accusing the conference, or individuals within
the conference of being anti-male I hear the words from a song.
They are:
"Though we adore men individually,
We believe that as a group they're rather stupid."
This is from the song Sister_Suffragette from the movie "Mary Poppins".
ASP
|
| 606.14 | Every day's a school day | VINO::EVANS | | Thu Dec 24 1987 13:06 | 6 |
| Oh Justine......CLICK!
Thank you.
Dawn
|
| 606.15 | De-centralization | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Toto and moi are On the Road again. | Thu Dec 24 1987 14:29 | 11 |
|
As for there being a focal point for the "Women's Movement",
There isn't one that is what it is all about, not following
blindly anyone elses agenda but my own.
_peggy
(-)
| That line was in Mary Poppins????
|
| 606.16 | Quote means nothing.... | 16BITS::KRUGER | | Thu Dec 24 1987 18:23 | 18 |
| re .0
One might say that the author's point is self vindicating. The
situation has been brought about by *intelligent* women....
The author has not managed to capture a correct picture of the women's
movement, but has nevertheless described her/himself aptly ;-)
re .-?
Can you really say that the women's movement is not hostile to men?
I realize that many women who consider themselves part of the movement
are not hostile, but in the ideology of the movement, is there not
a sense of outrage and anger at being victimized? Don't many of
the strongest and most vocal leaders describe men in a hostile manner?
This is not a flame, but an honest request for information.
dov
|
| 606.18 | | MANTIS::PARE | What a long, strange trip its been | Mon Dec 28 1987 14:00 | 5 |
| I read the NOW agenda and it seemed to be most unbiased. It was
concerned with equal rights and equality for everyone, regardless
of race and sexual preference. I don't have a copy but perhaps
someone else could post it here.
Mary
|
| 606.19 | no understanding = flame on! | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Mon Dec 28 1987 20:03 | 9 |
| RE: .2, .3, .4 ...
I believe that the problem which .0 blames 'female intellectuals' is not
the past, but the recent/present direction of the 'woman's movement'.
I don't think that .0 is very clear about that, but you could have checked
to see what .0 was really saying before you flame broil .0 to a crisp!
Jim.
|
| 606.20 | What an apt title. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Dec 28 1987 20:32 | 14 |
| Jim,
What the author of the book cited by the author of .0 (Let's get
our attributions right.) claims is that the woman's movement should
not blame men-of-the-past for the suppression of women, but should
blame women-of-the-past.
Since the book-author gives no dates (or other facts) in the posted
excerpt, it is hard to be at all specific about dates in response.
However, I do think that pointing to a male attitude which has remained
unchanged for more than fifteen centuries is sufficient refutation
to a claim that its sources are "modern" in nature.
Ann B.
|
| 606.22 | Looking forward to 1988 -- a great new year for Womannotes! | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Dec 29 1987 09:18 | 7 |
|
Happy New Year, Everyone!
Hope we all have a festive and safe holiday!
|
| 606.23 | Season's Greetings!! | SALEM::LUPACCHINO | From All Walks of Life 6-5-88 | Tue Dec 29 1987 11:09 | 9 |
| And a continued Merry Christmas to those who celebrate the 12 days
of Xmas. A Happy Kwanza to our Afro-American friends whose cultural
celebration is also 12 days long.
Have a SUPER New Year! I'll toss some lavender confetti over Boston
for you all!
Ann Marie
|
| 606.24 | when will they ever learn... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Dec 29 1987 12:03 | 20 |
| re .2 Mary Magdelene was a first century Christian activist leader.
Who are the intellectual Women Leaders today? Their values
and Leadership qualities.
re .3 No, much more feeling. And much more intelligent. Emotion
ties to intelligence, and whoever has Emotions under control
Wins or loses.
re .4 Stick with the topic. Scrape into Women's underside. Or
just say "season's greetings".
re .7 What is the "feminist philosophy"? Premises. Evidence.
re .9 :-)
re .11 My Ms mag F/M criticism ratios research is done. Have fun
defending them.
re .15 Yes, to each HER OWN. P.S. Was there ever a 'good' Christ-
ian agenda acceptable to NOW/Women? Just asking.
re .20 > I do think that pointing to a MALE ATTITUDE which has
remained UNCHANGED for more than 15 centuries....
Which attitude is that, who really taught it, whose might
it really be, .... Premises, premises, premises PLEEZE!
Russ
|
| 606.25 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Dec 29 1987 12:29 | 18 |
|
Say, I heard that you guys got lots of snow out there today!
How were the roads (hope you all make it home safely tonight!!)
We had a blizzard here over the weekend. It made the Broncos
game great fun to watch -- San Diego Chargers came up here to
play (and they didn't care for the white stuff too much.)
They think it's bad enough to play football in a city with
no air (y'know, mile high and all that.) So they bring their
little oxygen masks but they forgot their longjohns.
What is the fun of breathing if your lungs are too cold to
inhale and exhale??
I just love these little chats. Let's keep in touch. :-)
Suzanne...
|
| 606.27 | Denver has champion Party Animals when Broncos make playoffs. | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Dec 29 1987 13:52 | 14 |
| RE: .26 Russ
> -< may Denver get bombed again >-
I'm sure that there will be lots of that sort
of thing going on at parties all over Denver during
the playoffs (win or lose.)
> re .25 Believe me, I will. :-)
'Scuse me, but I wasn't addressing you in .25...
Suzanne...
|
| 606.31 | Date? What was the Date?! | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Dec 29 1987 23:11 | 105 |
| re .28 The questions you list are interesting but I think answering
them in THIS topic detracts from the basenote. How about a separate
topic Russ?
(more on .28 later)
re .21, Alan regarding my flaming .4
.21-> .4 I dont recall saying anything about that. BTW I think her name
-> is Suzanne not Sandy.
I meant Sandy Ciccolini.
As far as "opening my mind instead of my mouth" [paraphrased] is
concerned: I feel the timing of your base note was very, very bad for
this conference (for reasons which I am willing to discuss off-line).
Also, you are right: I flamed very hard (for me). Unfortunately, what
with the developments of last week (giddy on painkillers after wisdom
teeth went away), my communication skills went to never-never land.
I'll re-word and explain:
I don't see how women are responsible for the extremes of sexist
behavior, even if they are mothers of little boys.
Does a mother teach her son to rape?
Does a mother teach her son to beat his wife?
Does a mother teach her son to hoot & holler at a strange woman?
Does a mother teach her son to be violent?
Does a mother teach her son that women are chattel?
I don't think so.
While women have in the past "helped to keep women oppressed" and
may continue to do so today, until recently that had an awful lot
to do with the raw fact that any man could BY FORCE make a woman
incapacitated (pregnant). At that point, he has a slave. That
slave _must_ learn coping-mechanisms. And a slave who cares about
other slaves will pass along her coping-mechanisms to another who
may suffer if she _doesn't_ learn to cope.
Regarding your basenote:
I find any examination of sex-roles to be much more convincing when
I know the publishing date and the sex of the author. A man writing
in 1950 about the psychology of women and the roles we play holds
_no_ credence whatsoever with me. A woman writing about the psychology
of women in 1975 -- I have a lot of skepticism for her writing due
to some major works post-1975.
We must face the fact that sex-roles are changing VERY quickly,
and what may have been true in a 1982 survey may have changed an
awful lot by 1987/88.
Which brings me to Russ' .28
Sorry Russ; I have heard the name but I have no date affixed to
that publication. When did Vilar write _What is Woman_?
I find the quotation you made to be extremely demeaning in general
and doubt he is worth listening to. Is it because he is a man?
Is it because he is putting down women? No, to both, although they
may have something to do with my gut reaction. There is more to
it than that, tho.
The idea that it does not take "mental capacity" for a woman to
survive a severely abusive marriage is so much Hoooey. Similarly
for the idea that it does not take "mental capacity" to raise children.
Similarly for the idea that it does not take "mental capacity" to
adequately feed and clothe a family.
And women have NOT been all that sheltered: in a rural society,
the wife DOES do farm work, particularly during a bad season. The
"nuclear family" is something very, very new (and happily
disappearing).
I would suggest, very, very strongly, that you read Gilligan's _In
A Different Voice_. It explores the fact that most psychologists
(male and female) when studying women find those women to be severely
underdeveloped, psychologically immature. Her suggestion is that
these psychologists have been measuring women by standards which
were developed using MEN as the norm. If you choose to examine
girls' development (and the order in which it occurs), it becomes
clear that it is _different_ from that of men (girls learn first
to bond, then to separate; boys learn first to separate, then to
bond).
The value judgements of which is better, which is worse, who is
underdeveloped ("atrophied" if you will) and by whose standards,
these are all irrelevant. Unfortunately they are prevalent among
psychological literature dating from Freud to the last few years,
by men and women.
And nearly all of the excerpt you selected is value judgement,
measuring women's intelligence, "mental capacity", by standards
which were developed for men.
Statistically, girls are better at English than boys (who are better
at Math). Who is to say that Math takes more mental capacity than
English?
_In A Different Voice_ by Carol Gilligan. Widely recognized as
a landmark work. Have you read it?
Lee
|
| 606.32 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Tue Dec 29 1987 23:47 | 10 |
| <--(.31)
Not only that, Lee, but as has been pointed out by more than one
psychologist, the constellation of traits demanded of a
"well-adjusted", "normal" woman were (and to a disgusting extent still
are) the very same ones that get a man labelled "inadequate",
"immature", "pathologically dependent" and generally in need of
considerable therapy. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
=maggie
|
| 606.33 | Sad to say, they do... | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Dec 30 1987 01:47 | 13 |
| RE: .31
"Does a mother teach her son to rape?
Does a mother teach her son to beat his wife?
Does a mother teach her son to hoot & holler at a strange woman?
Does a mother teach her son to be violent?
Does a mother teach her son that women are chattel?"
Sad to say but mother's do in a way teach these things... They teach to give in
to, and cover up these things. When you give in to the system, you support the
system...
Jim.
|
| 606.35 | "Gee, I wish *I'd* said that!" | 15767::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Dec 30 1987 07:03 | 29 |
| RE: .19
"That doesn't answer Lee's question."
I didn't pretend to, or intend to answer Lee's question...
"So what you are saying is that Mothers cause these things to happen by teaching
their female children to "give in" (as you put it) and to "not tell.""
I simply said that children learn by example...
"Who is it that actually teaches LITTLE BOYS to grow up to be murderers and
rapists? "
Yawn... virtually everyone contributes to the problem...
"I remember mine quite well and I know for a fact that my Mother never told me,
"Now, honey, when a man tries to rape you and slit your throat, you just let
him."
I never said that your mother, or any mother ever did; stop butting words in my
mouth.
"The little boys who grow up to be some of the rapists and murderers in our
society are *TAUGHT* *VIOLENCE* by our culture."
*BINGO* <your favorite sarcastic remark>
Jim.
|
| 606.37 | Moderator Response | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Dec 30 1987 09:37 | 5 |
| .28 has been set hidden in response to a protest.
(and everything looked to be going so well, too)
=maggie
|
| 606.39 | Gandhi or Nixon | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Dec 30 1987 14:32 | 27 |
| Set hidden is better than removal. No prob. Yet.
Protests, protests. Or is it intimidation. Perhaps genuine
'concerns' for the Community. Perhaps so. But if so, let's
hear the concerns. Everyone needs to know better people's
concerns. Up front.
Myself, I'm tiring of fearful, oversensitive, cowardly,
or (possibly) guilty parties. these people complain the most
and seem to force Moderator's Hand's to have to play Editor.
I can discuss these matters thru other mediums. And have started
doing so. Funny, people can more easily talk about Values, Love,
and Quality, but can hardly DISCUSS Hatred, Sin and Destructive
behaviors. Without undue emotion. I wonder what Human **ADULTS**
ARE M A D E O F. NO, I DON'T WONDER AT ALL.
Better to Surface nearly ALL possible Qualities/traits
(virtues & sins of both sexes) than to drown in the seas of
IGNORANCE.
No. Let's just be personal, and not admit to anything.
PS Lee, Vilar is a German Woman.
Written 1971-2.
Also Germaine Greer SAID SOME-
THING, but I found out that
even she (intelligent feminist)
can be SHUT UP in these Conf's.
And it wasn't Wm/notes either.
Russ
|
| 606.40 | Hot Issues | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Wed Dec 30 1987 15:34 | 47 |
| 606.41 | Mother's teaching? You have to be joking. | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | God is nobody. Nobody loves you. | Wed Dec 30 1987 22:00 | 15 |
| I think it is ludicrous to believe that mothers teach their sons
to rape, beat, and otherwise abuse women. How many men remember
their mother saying "If you ever need to have the upper hand with
a woman, or want to have sex with her, and she doesn't want to
cooperate, beat her up and rape her. When you see a woman you like
the loos of, hoot."? I doubt very many have.
So, where do boys and men learn these behaviours from their peers.
Ultimately, it has to do with society's ideas on how men should
act, need for young men to feel macho. As long as these behaviours
are looked upon favorably by the young men's peers, these things
will continue to happen. I think it is an issue of role models
more than *who* caused it.
Elizabeth
|
| 606.42 | Do I remember? It never happened. | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Wed Dec 30 1987 22:40 | 9 |
|
Re: .41
Well , the fact that most men don't rape, beat and abuse
could have an impact on their maternal memory. This is, of course,
not to imply agreement with the mother-at-fault theory.
Greg
|
| 606.43 | Teaching by example... | XANADU::RAVAN | I got my facts blurrin' | Thu Dec 31 1987 00:42 | 27 |
| In general, I think we are each our own worst enemy; we should also
be (but not all of us are) our own best friend. The ability to sabotage
onesself isn't exclusive to women.
However, the "Mom did it" theory reminds me of a line from Alice
Walker's "The Color Purple," in which the narrator does indeed instruct
her step-son to beat his wife to keep her in line - this, despite (or
because of) the fact that the narrator has been beaten nearly all her
life. She honestly believes that it's the best way to promote the
marriage, because she doesn't know any other way.
I suspect it's more subtle these days. If a battered wife lies to her
children to protect their image of their father ("Oh, it's nothing, he
didn't mean it, he really loves me"), isn't she helping to teach them
that it's OK for Dad to beat Mom? I'm not saying this absolves Dad, of
course, but it's quite possible that Mom, in attempting to smooth
things over, may do more harm than good.
There are really too many influences in most kids' lives to place
the blame on any one source, though. And each child reacts differently;
one who is close to his mother may learn more from her, while another
may learn the most from a peer group. Between parents, family, friends,
neighbors, and (these days, primarily) television, children can
pick up all manner of ideas; and the media's still full of very
bad examples.
-b
|
| 606.44 | Good Parenting | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Dec 31 1987 02:07 | 21 |
| If Men raised children with a 51 - 80 % input time, how might
we view the results of their teachings?
In a previous note I said a 12 hr to 3 hr Time ratio (F/M)
is a possible scenario for the raising of a child. From birth
to (say) age 5, that Input time amounts to 21,600 Hours for the
wife. And 5,900 hours for the husband. These are important
Formative years. I am aware of theories that some children's
sexual orientation can be figured out by age 5.
It makes sense to me that a Damn good number of Societies
(various) ills can be traced back to how the child was taught
by one Parent or another. Or more probably - NOT TAUGHT.
Also, the Majority of Elementary School teachers, not to
mention Daycare/Sitters are Women.
So Let's stop kidding ourselves here. Focusing on JUST the 2
Parents, WHO Taught US MOST?? If not the woman, then what does
that SAY about the time that was spent with US?
ALSO, let me stress that I'm interested in exploring just what
g ood Parenting IS, and that includes Values. Values. Values.
Kabish? Kabish.
Russ
|
| 606.45 | Who is *Society* | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Dec 31 1987 03:59 | 3 |
| RE .45 Society is the Parents. If not, all is Lost. Very good.
Russ
|
| 606.46 | it's all the same... | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Thu Dec 31 1987 04:00 | 16 |
| RE: Beth
Thanks for saying it so eloquently!
RE: .41
"Ultimately, it has to do with society's ideas on how men should act, need for
young men to feel macho."
And who's the first one there doing the programming?
'Go outside and play with the other boys; don't sit in here reading'
'It's just a scratch, don't be a big baby, stop crying'
Jim.
|
| 606.48 | subordinates as agents for the dominant group | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | U.S. out of North America | Thu Dec 31 1987 13:03 | 32 |
| Am I missing some link in the discussion here? Are some folks saying
that because women raise most of the children in this country, and
some of those children turn out to be rapists, women are responsible
for rape? HUH? That sounds to me like saying that because Jews
sometimes acted as jailers in prison camps, Jews are also to blame
for the Holocaust.
What kind of power does one mother really have if she wants to combat
the sexism in this culture? She can raise *HER* children
differently? She may provide a wonderful role model at home, but most
kids watch sexist, violent T.V. and movies, listen to sexist and
violent songs, read sexist text books at school, meet sexist teachers and
classmates. Parents can expose their children to different ideas, and
they can hope that their children will learn to question information
that is presented to them. But I think to suggest that mothers are
completely (or even mostly) responsible for the socialization of their
children is incorrect. Even if it were somehow proven that mothers
have more influence over their childrens' beliefs and values than
any other agent, I still think blaming mothers for sexist (and even
violent) behavior of their sons really misses the point.
When a powerful minority (In this case, the minority I'm thinking
of is white, heterosexual, wealthy, able-bodied, well-educated, Christian
males) dominates most everyone else in society, it stands to reason
that those in power will use subordinates as agents. The fact that
women sometimes perpetuate the inequality that exists in this culture
only serves to legitimize it. (IF Linda Chavez says it, it must
be so...) I believe that as long as the system is dominated by males
and male values, those values will be passed on no matter what individual
women (or men) do at home.
Justine
|
| 606.49 | | MANANA::RAVAN | I got my facts blurrin' | Thu Dec 31 1987 13:28 | 24 |
| Re .48:
I don't believe that women in general are completely (or even mostly)
responsible for the social ills that their children grow up to commit.
However, I also do not believe that being a victim automatically
relieves a person of all responsibility. If that were true, people
who were enslaved (which at some time or other included all of us)
would be excused from enslaving others, "because they were victimized
and don't know any other way". People who were beaten and abused
are entitled to help and sympathy, but if they in turn beat and
abuse others or encourage submission to such treatment, I think
they should bear some responsibility for their decision.
I know, I know - how much of a "decision" can someone make when
their choices and knowledge have been limited all their lives. But
all of us are limited in some way, and we have to do the best we
can. These problems belong to all of us, and need to be solved by
all of us; I just want to be fair about apportioning the blame.
No, women aren't solely responsible; but neither are we guiltless.
So maybe we can all get on with deciding what to do about the
problems...
-b
|
| 606.50 | not sure we're in disagreement here | PSYCHE::SULLIVAN | U.S. out of North America | Thu Dec 31 1987 13:42 | 8 |
|
Gee, Beth (It is Beth, right?) I don't think I was suggesting that
women are blameless. I, too, would like to spend less time on
the issue of blame. I did feel compelled, however, to challenge
the notion that because women do most of the child rearing, they
are reponsible for how most of the children turn out.
Justine
|
| 606.51 | | CYRUS::DRISKELL | | Thu Dec 31 1987 17:58 | 57 |
| I agree that for the 'formative' years of a child's life, women
(for the most part)
are the 'teachers', either as mothers or as daycare/ educators.
However, when I was young, I remember the teachers (female) scolding
the boy's when they made remarks about the girls. Clearly, they
_never_ indicated that it was appropriate for men to whistle/ yowl
at women as they walked by... that was _bad manners_. I think that
most of us received the same input from the female role models in
our life. How then did women teach young boys to to show such blatent
disrespect (even to the point of teaching them that it is a
_compliment_) ?
I believe that boys are taught this from society, but strictly from
MALE society.
This is only my belief, though. You are perfectly at liberty to
believe that since I ignore such crass behavior on the streets,
as opposed to increasing the vulgar scene, that I am perpetuating
the myth that it is an appropriate action for a male to take.
That only addresses the issue of 'comments' on the street. In the
same way, a women who is beaten, or raped, but attempts to continue
to live her life without outward retailiation towards her attacker,
is not, in my opinion, condoning those violent actions. She is
doing the best she can in dealing with what she is experiencing
in life.
I personally have never heard a women suggest to anyone that a husband
should beat his wife to keep her in line. I have heard some men
joke (JOKE???) amoung themselves that they should "wrack the old
lady once a week whether she need's it or not". Again, another
clear example of how women support these concepts. Should I have
joined these men and forced a discussion upon them about how terrible
such a concept is? When I did, I received the answer of "we were
only joking, don't get so histerical...". Gee, when I discuss
it, I'm histerical. If I don't, I'm condoning and even encouraging
this attitude.
The only place I have ever seen a woman suggesting to a man that
he beat another woman is in a book. Either written by a male,
(see bible..) or written by a female as fiction (I wonder what point
she was trying to make??!!?).
I catagorically refuse to accept your assumption that women (as
a group) are responsible for men's violence towards women.
They may have passively accepted it, as a means to survival, but
they have never (as a group) been active in the promotion of such
attitudes.
mary
Again, this is my beliefs. I'm sure you will continue to believe
whatever you wish.
|
| 606.52 | Perhaps teaching then rebellion accounts for some | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | God is nobody. Nobody loves you. | Thu Dec 31 1987 18:15 | 21 |
| I can see one way that women's teaching may encourage various MCP
type behaviors in young men. Almost all teen-agers rebel against
authority. Whatever they have been told is "wrong" or "bad manners"
they are probably going to try. This accounts for hooting, making
off-color remarks, etc. In this respect, it may come from their
training which comes mostly from women.
Some of these boys have also seen their fathers beat their mothers.
They have also been exposed to other chauvinistic ideas (women in their
place, they want sex no matter what they say, etc.). Some of these
boys are going to try these sort of anti-social behaviors, often with
the encouragement of their peers. This is mostly a problem originating
with men, with the non-action of some women making it worse. If
his mother did nothing about her treatment, he may assume that beating
women is an OK thing to do, and perpetuate it. If the authorities
took these matters seriously and treated wife-beatings like any
other form of assault and battery, complete with jail time, I think
it would come off as a not-OK thing to do. Thus, part of the problem
lies with the authorities - police and judges and legislators.
Elizabeth
|
| 606.53 | The Cowardly Tyrant | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Dec 31 1987 18:50 | 76 |
| re .48 I think Riane Eisler and many other people agree with you.
I can go about half way.
Rape. Brutal. Inexcusable. Intolerable. I have a close
lady friend who was brutally raped by 2 men in a van last
year. They were never caught. No telling what I'd do if
I found them.
No reasoning can blame a Mother for such an Act of
Violence. If Parents are to get a trace of blame in
the matter, make it a shared blame. Lack of good teaching,
values, and direction. I think Ashley Montague in his
fine book, "The Natural Superiority of Women" said that
many male criminals have chromosome irregularities/damage.
For example instead of the male (rapist) having the usual
xy chromosomes, a number of weird xxy and xyy chromosomes
are their bodily makeup. This information in no way excuses
such a vicious crime. Body chemistry may HELP to explain
SOME of the Structural problems that a (potential) rapist
or other aggressively inclined person (criminal) has to
DEAL WITH. It does NOT explain undue aggression ACTED OUT
Perhaps a Medical test at birth can be made to inform
Parents that they have a son with chromosome irregularities
that may lead to very impulsive aggressive behavior, incl-
the possibility of aggravated assault/rape. At the very
least, such Parents would be aware of the son's Biological
makeup, and hopefully educate the son about the possible
dangers of impulsive, dangerous aggression. At least the
son would be aware of the (possible) potential for Rape,etc.
I am guessing that a majority of rapes are not chromo-
some- problem related. Going back a bit, I think Chromosomes
are a small factor (ie blame) regarding the crime of Rape.
But no matter, awareness-education FIRST. For everyone.
Lee, Justine, I believe the subject (reality) of rape
belongs elsewhere. The basenote is about a Woman's own
unique brand of possessing the Power/emotions of Tyranny.
Tyranny is a single ruler vested with loads of Power.
One who exercises Power unjustly or cruelly. A Woman who
is harsh or severe. One who commits cruel ACTS.
The basenote strongly suggests that Women have often
used the Premise of Strongly Blaming (and flaming) MEN
for Oppressing them, and I suppose preventing them from
attaining higher achievements.
I am very curious to know the extent that American
Women feel this way. I am very curious to know where
Women learned all these prejudices. Personal experience,
Mothers, father's, peers,etc. No one has gotten up and
really shouted,"Collette Dowling says it all: Woman must
take Full Personal responsibility for All of HER ACTIONS!"
So I tend to think that many Women tend to blame Men
for their problems. Throughout all History. Including
Today. At least blaming Men for more problems than need
be. To me, that attitude is Tyrannical, Intellectually
shallow & dishonest, and as emotionally immature as a
Human Being can get.
By the Way, BIG PICTURE PEOPLE, The Family *is* the
*System*. A Adult Woman should NOT choose a man with
dominating (mentality) values. Or vise versa. This day
& age surely, one has absolute choice. I really fail
to see how both Men & Women thru the Ages did not have
choice picks. Any severe inequality is a severe commun-
ication glitch between the Sexes. In any Age. So both
take enormous blame for any problems. In pairing, it's
mutual.
If either sex could be found to be 52 - 48 % to
blame for sexual inequality, I ask, which sex might
be inclined to take the bigger chunk of the 'blame' ?
I suspect Men have LONG been CONDITIONED to do so.
Men feel damn guilty about a lot of things. And I think
quite irrationally. being blamed for Women's problems.
WHO THREW those *Charges* AT US ?? WHO. Were we REALLY
well educated by the accuser?? Are We. Yes or no.
Tell me teacher. Also, how many women can risk admitting
to even just that *48* % blame ? Who has admitted any
faults lately. Isn't a tyrant (M/F) largely a bully
in reality? In other words.......... A COWARD.
Russ
|
| 606.54 | | SSDEVO::ACKLEY | Aslan | Thu Dec 31 1987 18:53 | 25 |
|
Sexual repression leads to frustration. Frustration then leads
to overly agressive behavior. I doubt that women teach their
little boys to oppress or use/abuse women. But if they cause
a lot of frustration in the kids, then this may indirectly lead
to men abusing women (or anybody).
I believe it is true that sexual repression begins in the home.
School and peer groups can't do much harm to a person who is raised
at home with freedom and self-responsibility. But someone who
is psychically damaged, mentally lost, might then be led further
astray by peers.
I find it far-fetched to think of mommys telling their boys
"you will nead to beat your wife". but I do think parents can
wrongly teach boys to fight, to repress crying, and worst of all
to feel guilty about pleasure.
As an aside; I know most men in this society are still being
ritually castrated (circumcised) as infants. Could this trauma
add to the problems? I think so. I think the human race has
been exposed to a massive amount of sexual trauma, that is passed
from generation to generation.
alan.
|
| 606.55 | Too many Ys | PNEUMA::SULLIVAN | U.S. out of North America | Thu Dec 31 1987 19:32 | 24 |
| Russ, extra y chrom.? I can't quote the source now, (someone will
no doubt find it more quickly than I), but I believe the extra y
theory was proposed a while back as the/a primary reason for wife
abuse and other forms of violence. I believe it was basically
disproven, but it was found that men with the extra y tend to be
of lower than average intelligence and therefore more likely to
be serving time in jail for committing all sorts of crimes, i.e.
they got caught, so they were the ones who got studied. And even
if an extra y did lead to more violent behavior, what percentage
of violent criminals are we talking about here?
And where are heterosexual women supposed to meet men that are free
of these "dominating (mentality) values" ... Womannotes?
If only the blacks in South Africa could just learn to "communicate"
better with the whites, the inequality problem would vanish. Anyone
who reads a little and writes well can produce a sound argument
for almost anything. But if others disagree with the fundamental
assumptions on which that argument is based, no one is going to
change her or his mind.
May 1988 be full of good things for all those who have been oppressed.
Justine
|
| 606.56 | Well, Watson... | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Dec 31 1987 20:09 | 34 |
| Russ, thank you for that second quote. It makes something clearer
to me, and gives me a basis for the following.
Vilar's thesis seems to be based on the idea that a housewife has an
easy life. Let us contrast this view with a simple, Reader's
Digest-type fact:
The average, full-time American housewife spends 50 hours
a week on housework.
Now, the average man works, what?, 40 hours a week, plus commute
time. Do you really think that the woman who does 50 hours of
mostly manual labor, for which she receives no pay, has no Social
Security benefits, has no job security, and has no possibility of
retirement, even unpaid, is sufficiently better off that she would
plot and scheme for it?
Now, in the teeth of that little fact, how could Vilar have come
to believe her thesis? Your statement of year of publication (1971)
and author's nationality (German) were sufficient to allow me to
make a guess: If she is an "intellectual", then in order to have
that designation bestowed upon her, she would have to have been at
least forty when her book was published. This means she was born
no later than 1931. Now, in Europe, even today, it is very difficult
for a person to be from anything except the upper classes in order
to achieve the designation "intellectual".
Therefore, she is an upper-class German woman born before 1932.
Therefore, she was raised with servants. Therefore, she has no
real understanding of how most women live, and no appreciation of
the level of work they face. Just ignore her; she speaks from
ignorance.
Ann B.
|
| 606.57 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Thu Dec 31 1987 23:01 | 12 |
| > The average, full-time American housewife spends 50 hours
> a week on housework.
Hmm, does that mean that women who work outside their homes are
"part-time" housewives? Probably not, unless they can afford
housecleaning services or have a spouse who is willing and able
to share the work fully.
Many of the same tasks still need to be accomplished, especially
if there are small children in the family.
|
| 606.58 | Esther Vilar | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Dec 31 1987 23:47 | 37 |
| re .55 No, probably 'my' X one. When the technology permits,
I plan to trade it in for a superior Y one. I think that
reality should be xx = yy.
The Biological problem for some criminals was sensibly
explained in .53. A possible contributing factor for some.
Comparing U.S. Men with the truly Oppressive South African
Gov't Regine is a totally inappropriate analogy. Please
check your FACTS regarding SOUTH AFRICA. American Women
can travel anywhere they please; some people in South
Africa SURELY CANNOT.
re .56 > fact: ... 50 hours/wk on housework.
I find a few hours a week suffices. Not including Hite's
important Emotional Housework of course. Life is NOT
justifying one's existence by consuming Lysol.
F Cosmetics 5-30 mins
M Football 4 hours
F Housework 50 hours. So it's 'our' turn to beat THAT
M: ( ? ? )(?? " ). Huh? Good luck Guys.
Vilar sez it all on P. 15-16 on
this cutie. (100 copies avail. if
someone doesn't wise up - fast)
Esther Vilar was born in Argentina (German Parents) in
1935. She has done work as a saleswoman, shoe model,
secretary, assembly-line worker in a thermometer factory,
and translator. She went to West Germany to study psych-
ology and sociology. She studied to become a Physician
and worked as a Doctor in a Bavarian Hospital.
I do not know if her Parents were upper class or not.
I believe she has seen (& experienced) the various levels
of work that Women do. And can see and understand how
most Women live.
Assuming that Germaine Greer is likewise ignorant,
perhaps you are correct. I shall delve deeper.
thank you,
Russ
|
| 606.59 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Jan 01 1988 01:08 | 18 |
| RE: .58
Quick question: What did you mean about 100 copies being
available (if someone doesn't wise up fast)?
If you are the one who is purchasing large numbers of this
book (I saw in another note you mentioned that there were
copies available at the back door) -- I guess I am a little
curious about why you would spend what must be a large amount
of money on books that teach a certain Philosophical stance
about women.
Do you endorse Vilar (do you believe that her position is
entirely correct?) Do you hope to convince a significant
number of other people that her view of women is the most
correct/valid/whatever?
Suzanne...
|
| 606.60 | Knockin on Heaven's Door | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Jan 01 1988 08:40 | 136 |
| RE .59 I believe Eisler and Vilar are the 2 key authors
regarding who is to blame for Sexual Inequality.
Moreover, I think both authors have enough on each
Sex to make the Superpower Nuclear arsenals look like
2 kids with BB guns.
I don't believe that I am out of line in viewing how
I think that *Society* is a)the individual. b) Family
(F/M, children), c) Local Community (etc, etc.)
At some point in time (perhaps still), the Family
must reflect larger pictures (ie'Society'). So I've
decided to MAKE the Family ***SOCIETY***.
If one tries to get too much bigger (ie Gov't,etc)
in an analysis of the ways that the Sexes treat themselves
and one another, the analysis of several thousands of
factors comes into the calculations, and, to keep it
short, I don't need needless details. There is enough
information in a,b,c, to figure out how well the 2 sexes
are doing. Individuals. Families. The Community.
A Family can decide how children are to be raised.
Including T.V. Most peer associations. Value Foundations.
Whatnot. If a Family cannot adequately control those things
that they would like their children to be influenced by,
(not to mention the Adult's lives), then, logically, some-
thing is/went wrong somewhere in the abc etc line.
The World being as it is, let me say that something has
Indeed gone wrong, and, very likely, in shitloads of places,
everywhere along the abcdefg....line. Everywhere (just about)
in the World. Even a possibly civil place like noting can
go astray. I am not ignorant.
The Big Picture aside, people are thinking again about
basic relationships. a,b,c. One cannot ignore Work, but
if it is to be a (poss/probable) factor, let's put it in
c. (yeah I know, its really 'Global...blah blah-no matter).
Some people have started to talk about how they were
raised, and how they raise their children. This is good.
I cannot say my ideas as well as better educated people can,
but I find that these discussions are important. Explorations
of our development as Human beings is always revealing in
one way or another. Sometimes insights. Like just where do
all these thoughts come from?
If just the 2 Parents are studied, then I think it would
be hard to demonstrate a 50% - plus on the part of the
father. In General. The Mother's time with Children just
appears too be to great. Naturally, there are numerous
things to consider, but 1000's of extra hours add up.
Regarding crimes, I strictly blame the Individual Adult
in question. If a Parent didn't teach well, then the other
Parent wasn't teaching (or aware), and was negligent in
picking up the slack. Since the Mother is (usually) entrusted
to teach, the nod regarding influence would seem to (logically)
tend toward her. If someone insists upon a Parental Blame
Game Mentality, Mother gets a marginal nod. One way or
the other.
Riane Eisler. Well. Simply put, She is the Wisest Thinker
of our age. Her Historical Reconstruction of the Development
of people/Societies is very powerful. Peaceful Societies
run over by Barberous Men. One really cannot deny the awful
Dominating - Violent & Sweeping Wipeouts that these terrible
Male (over female) Warriors did. They f*ckin Destroyed.
Her ideas on Male Dominator Patriarchal Society are like-
wise convincing ( a bit redundant at times). It may sound
a bit far-fetched, but what really spurred these WideSpread
Sweeps anyway? The Cold Upper climates. Competing Warrior
tribes? Did these 'Mens' Women .... well could they have
tried to ... do more to stop these crimes? Or were the
Women already Dominated victims.
(This is inappropriate but: How might Life have turned out
had both sexes been of equal strenght & body weight at the
start? --- Tough Question. I think much better but ...)
Also, the development of Women with THOSE Men needs some
kind of exploration, but with the Premise (Domination)
it would be difficult to try to be unbiased(I would think).
Still, it is CRUCIAL that Something be dug up regarding the
possible developmental opportunities(& mindset?!) AND
INFLUENCE that these Women may have had. Alas, such folk
(all) were primitive & just had different thoughts.
Anyhow, Eisler moves along thru the Ages & Puts together
the Male (over Woman) Dominator Model.
Her Solutions are the fascinating parts. They cut thru
nearly all the red tape, and are probably the very finest
Thoughts (Final Premises for all Premises!!? :-)) on
Solving sexual Inequality and Destructive Rankings on
People over other People that I will ever see.
She says for People to be Partners. Men and Women.
She refuses to make an US/Them case though She easily
could. She told me that some Women can be extremely
cruel and as Dominating as you can get(her words).
I did ask her about Vilar's and Dowling's Books.
Her above statement summarized the Vilar inquiry, and
she said that Dowling's sharp book involved a Woman's
being cut off at the toes. There is more to my exchange
with Eisler, but this will do for now.
I think I touched upon Eisler's Solutions some in Books
428 & M/NTS 178.81 (or is it .82)
I can elaborate more this weekend. Simply put, Eislers
Solutions appear strong enough to Solve the Major Problems,
particularly if sexual Inequality (or a 'high enough male
blame ratio!?) is MAN's Fault. The extent is moot. The
Solutions would work.
Regarding Vilar. Sigh. The book is behavioral. It describes
assorted female atrocities Women have committed over time.
From birth on. The work uses old, and oft-time archaic words
and phrases. Oh, the atrocities are against herself (ie
a woman's development,insufficient personal blame for own
probs, etc) and , Yes, AGAINST MEN.
Since such work is behavioral, it is extremely difficult
prove or disprove such a work. When men have read it, they
all tell me that MANY MANY BELLS are RUNG. The emotions
a Woman can show to a man. The *kind* of TALK that comes
out, time and again. How a number of men were RAISED. How
the Woman can treat a husband. The pitfals of depending
upon a man, and the types of personalities that can form
from such a dependancy. For both parties.
I can go on and on. Whether Vilar's ancient work can
help explain Modern Day Women is a tough, tough calculation.
I prefer that people read Dowling's Cinderella Complex as
that Work is a most practical one for Modern Day Women to
really Learn from.
In closing, I want to say that I find NOW achieved a
lot for both sexes, particularly in the 70's. I strongly
disagree with many of their tactics to get points across.
Including the very very dangerous attitude the Leaders/
spokespersons have regarding high flaming of Men. *ESP*
this day & Age. They need to better learn from Eisler &
Dowling. When was the last time NOW said something GOOD about
a man or 2. In your recollection. How about BAD THINGS.
I think People see what I mean.
Finally, if Vilar does indeed have considerable bite,
I suspect Eisler's Solution's could still be the best
way to go. Provided more women acknowledged more personal
faults, responsibilities & such.
Again, the danger is an overkill of blame games & perhaps
hardest, LIVING in the PAST.
to the future,
Russ
|
| 606.61 | Let's dispence with the blame, what's next? | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Sun Jan 03 1988 15:34 | 38 |
| RE: .48
"Are some folks saying that because women raise most of the children in this
country, and some of those children turn out to be rapists, women are
responsible for rape?"
No, nobody is saying that. What I am saying is that there is a lot of
conditioning going on in society that we don't know all the consequences of.
Some of that conditioning promotes violence, and submission to violence. A large
part of important conditioning has traditionally been done by mothers in the
past. Therefore, women are a part of the problem just as men are. Who is
responsible? Everyone... Who is to blame? Everyone. Why is this discussion
about mothers specifically? Because it should be pointed out that mothers
contribute to society's problems just like everyone else.
Don't let your children watch TV... When I have my children we have better
things to do then watch TV.
What you are saying is that since a woman cannot have complete control of her
children that she is not resposibile? I disagree; a woman is resposible for
every bit of conditioning she gives her children AND other people, just as men
are.
"it stands to reason that those in power will use subordinates as agents."
Are you saying that such conditioning is planned and intentional? I thought we
had already been past this one...
"The fact that women sometimes perpetuate the inequality that exists in this
culture only serves to legitimize it."
This could be taken several ways; could you reword this?
RE: .50
Fine, let's dispence with the blame... what's next?
Jim.
|
| 606.62 | passive acceptance is hurtfull in the long run | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Sun Jan 03 1988 16:37 | 19 |
| RE: .51
"How then did women teach young boys to to show such blatent disrespect?"
I think that *some* women enjoy such attention, in this case I suspect more
immature women (read schoolgirls) might be easier flattered. But I agreee with
you, the majority of the conditioning in this case seems to be approval from
male peers.
Yes, I think that when you ignore such behavior, you *are* in part perpetuating
the behavior. I don't think your analogy is similiar enough. A better analogy
would be where a victim of rape refuses to stand witness.
"They may have passively accepted it, as a means to survival,"
It may help in the short run, but in the long run passive acceptance is
definitely not helpfull.
Jim.
|
| 606.63 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Jan 04 1988 10:43 | 28 |
|
RE: .62
In abusive situations, the abusers often inflict *worse* abuse
when one tries to do anything other than passively accept it.
In addition, our society is not geared to support one who
protests abuse. You used the example of a rape victim who
refuses to testify. That is an excellent example of the kind
of situation where victims have often been subjected to
*more* abuse while testifying (so much so, in fact, that the
trial becomes almost as traumatic as the rape itself and victims
are reluctant to put themselves through it.)
Women who protest abuse are often subject to the worst kinds
of insults. If they protest without fighting back, they are
called whiners. If they fight back, they are called bitches
(and other worse names.)
After witnessing a great deal of abuse, many women will advise
other women to ignore it or refuse to acknowledge it (and, in
the case of physical abuse, to remove oneself from the physical
reach of the abuser.)
We're definitely talking about survival tips here (even if it
is the survival of one's sanity.)
Suzanne...
|
| 606.64 | What do you think women should do? | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | God is nobody. Nobody loves you. | Mon Jan 04 1988 17:59 | 11 |
| Re .62
I'm not sure that I understand. You make an analogy that a woman
who ignores men hooting at her to a woman who doesn't testify against
her rapist. What do you think women should do? I'm not even sure
that it's really illegal to do. Even if it is, I sincerely doubt
that the police would take a complaint seriously enough to arrest
anyone. Yell back? That's what they want. Shoot them? Then she
gets arrested. Do you have any other ideas?
Elizabeth
|
| 606.65 | you make it sound sooo good | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Mon Jan 04 1988 18:31 | 14 |
| RE: .63
Are you advising women to ignore abuse? You make it sound real appealing...
don't make it reality.
RE: .64
What can you do about being hooted at?
I don't know exactly... it depends on the situation, but basically what you
want to accomplish is for the hooter to see that it is profitable to hoot at
you... Sounds like a good note topic...
Jim.
|
| 606.66 | all 12 yr old girls are fine... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Jan 05 1988 03:48 | 12 |
| re ... I'll be hooting & hollaring about .28's burial soon enough.
Considering the STAKES for a young Child's development...
along with the STAKES for poor Child development, I can
see that some TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES may be a reality .....
Let me start to read 607 to see what Gail means....
Or, along with that, start pressing ALL the buttons in
my sanctuary 'over there', beginning with revealing admissions
from NOW itself about some of the WRONG things that happened.
No Maggie, it's Damned when people DON't.
Well.... I'm about to.
Russ
|
| 606.67 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Jan 05 1988 05:59 | 30 |
|
RE: .65
Jim Baranski, it already *is* a reality that many women in our
culture find that ignoring abuse is less painful than protesting
about it or attempting to fight back.
More often than not, protesting abuse achieves very little (even
in rape cases), so women are facing a choice between a) ignoring
abuse, and b) protesting abuse (and as a consequence, receiving
*more*/*worse* abuse even if the protests about the original
abuse did not succeed in helping the victim in any way.)
I'm not saying that rape victims should not come forward (nor
am I saying that *other* female targets of abuse should not
come forward to protest.) What I'm saying is that our culture
is set up to punish the women who *do* protest about abuse
(and that is what I find objectionable.)
The ironic thing is that the abusers who subject their victims
to furthur abuse when they protest are often the *same people*
who criticize women for not protesting at all (and say that
abuse is the fault of the women victims who fail to protest.)
It's kind of a cat and mouse game, in other words. The abuser
says, "If you tell anyone, I'm going to let you have 'it' worse
than before." Then the abuser says, "I only do this to you
because you let me."
Suzanne...
|
| 606.68 | Also, still wondering about the 100 copies of Vilar's book... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Jan 05 1988 07:33 | 14 |
|
RE: .66 Russ Pollitz
> I'll be hooting & hollaring about .28's burial soon enough....
> ...along with that, [I will] start pressing ALL the buttons
> in my sanctuary 'over there', beginning with revealing
> admissions from NOW itself about some of the WRONG things
> that happened.
> No Maggie, it's Damned when people DON't.
> Well.... I'm about to.
This sounds very much as though you plan to "punish" some/many
of us for the protest against your hidden note.
Suzanne...
|
| 606.70 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Jan 05 1988 12:20 | 19 |
|
RE: .69
Saving a child's life? Are you a parent? Have you ever defended
your own child from a serious attack from an abuser?
Well, I have. I stood in front of my own son and told the
attacker that he had better plan on killing me first if he had
any ideas about laying a hand on my young child.
As to the rest of your note, it was unintelligible as always.
If you want to talk about saving a child's life, try to keep
in mind that although it makes for an interesting way to describe
whatever it is that you are trying to talk about -- there are
those of us here who have defended our children's lives in a
much more real sense.
Suzanne...
|
| 606.72 | when why protest? | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Tue Jan 05 1988 15:39 | 13 |
| RE: .67
"Jim Baranski, it already *is* a reality that many women in our culture find
that ignoring abuse is less painful than protesting about it or attempting to
fight back."
If you really believe that, shutup, and go back to ignoring abuse. In the
long run ignoring abuse encourages abuse.
Jim.
|
| 606.73 | | HEFTY::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Tue Jan 05 1988 16:23 | 4 |
| Jim, I would have phrased that as "No pain, no gain"
You can convince better without abusive language. Or goading
remarks.
|
| 606.74 | | VINO::EVANS | | Tue Jan 05 1988 16:46 | 10 |
| RE: Ignoring abuse
To address the previous example of not prosecuting a rape...
In a country in which too many rapists go free, it is terribly cavalier
to tell women "no pain, no gain". There has been *a lot* of pain.
And still, no gain.
--DE
|
| 606.76 | | BUMBLE::PARE | What a long, strange trip its been | Tue Jan 05 1988 19:20 | 21 |
| Gee, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of finding some
validity in Jim Baranski's statement. It occurs to me that many
of us (women) learn to be victims from other women, ... from our mothers,
our grandmothers, our teachers. It also occurs to me that we must
fight back, no matter how painful or how difficult.
We can fight back by refusing to date or live with a man who appears
the least bit physically threatening, by transferring to another job
when confronted by a boss who appears to be verbally abusive, by
refusing to accept the standards, the goals and the behavior patterns
of a "victim".... even if other women we love and respect say "its the
lady like thing to do or be", even if it means taking a risk. Children
*do* learn to be strong by seeing the strength of their parents...
both mother and father, example is a strong teacher. It shows more
strength to stand one's ground while saying what must be said in
a quiet voice than to go on a brutal rampage... that kind of behavior
isn't strong, its weak and out of control. If we must stand and
be heard than we must... for our childrens sake as well as our own.
Mary
|
| 606.77 | | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Tue Jan 05 1988 19:29 | 19 |
| RE: last few in regards to rape victims not prosecuting
The last few replies advocating "no pain no gain" have
bothered me. They seem to imply that the woman is at
fault for being the victim if she doesn't do something
about it. It is never the woman's fault for being victimized,
even though her doing something *might* stop the victimizer.
I greatly admire the courage of a rape victim in going to
court, and hope that I too would be as strong. However it
does not belittle a woman to choose not to prosecute. The
crime was not hers, and she has the right to minimize her
own suffering by not prosecuting.
You cannot blame the oppressed for their oppression. It takes
very special people to stand up when they know that they might
die (literally) for standing up.
...Karen
|
| 606.78 | Sidelights and symptoms | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Jan 05 1988 20:27 | 69 |
| I apologize for ignoring the past several replies in this note,
but I have written the following, and it does belong here. Just
keep writing around me.
Russ,
So, Esther Vilar was born in Argentina in 1935, and had this book
published in 1971. Which means that she finished writing it when
she was 35. Therefore, "German intellectual" is just one of those
little exaggerations that publishers are prone to. (It is still
clear to me that she has led a life with privileges and servants.)
I then did what I should have done in the first place; I dragged
myself to the library and looked her up. This was enlightening.
I learned that she *is* an M.D.. (Your description weaseled around
that point.) I learned that she was married in 1961 and divorced
in 1963. So much either for her claim that men are "trained and
conditioned by women" into marriage, or for her claim that women
find marriage a cushy deal, or for both claims.
I learned (as I had suspected) that her book does not contain a
bibliography. In addition, it does not even have an index. This
datum, in conjunction with the quotes from the book which you have
provided, implies to me that solid facts are few and far between
in this volume. Really! If one is to make claims for an international
conspiracy spanning centuries, one ought to be able to point to
historical incidents and [clandestinely published] tracts to support
such claims. As it is, I would file this book next to the classic
fantasy, _Conjure_Wife_ by Fritz Leiber.
I learned that most of her fan letters came from men, and that a
typical one would read, "... it's all true what you write about men
being manipulated by women -- but I'm the exception." She considers
this to be a moderate response! It sounds altogether too much like
that repeated line from _Charley's_Aunt_: ~He's *such* an awful
idiot. But *I'm* all right.~
Now for some reviews of _The_Manipulated_Man_: "So much of it is
wrong-headed, short-sighted, and limited to vast, undocumented
generalizations." -- New Republic. "...especially appropriate to
the Latin American bourgeosie; ... [does not] even seem to apply
[to Britain]", "... the work of a long-winded pixie" -- Books and
Bookmen. "Her argument is slapdash and unsubstantiated..." -- New
York Review of Books. "...viciously over-generalized..." -- New York
Times Book Review. "...a piece of tripe...[that] does sell"
-- Washington Post Book World.
You are going to wave Germaine Greer's comments under my nose. Don't
bother. She wrote, "... it's true in an outrageous sort of way."
Doris Grumbach wrote, "...there are grains of partial truth in [her]
thesis." Raymond Durgnat wrote, "... there are some neat and pointed
passages."
What all these (and other) reviewers/critics are saying is that she
has done an excellent job of describing and examining the symptoms
of a particular societal disease. However, she sees the symptoms
*as* the disease, and therefore has missed entirely on the cause.
It is as if she had isolated and described a disease in which chronic
tireness and aching joints were the principle characteristics.
She does a fabulous job of description, right down to the finest
particulars, and assiduously treats every symptom, even the least
common. Yet until she diagnoses chronic Epstein-Barr, she won't
get anywhere. Even then, until she realizes that that disease
will not manifest itself -- at all -- until years, even decades,
after the initial, apparently unrelated harm has been done to the
system, she is unlikely to hit upon a cure, and will definitely
be unable to discover a preventative.
Ann B.
|
| 606.80 | Twilight of Logic | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Jan 05 1988 21:06 | 6 |
| re .78 Ann,
Such a vast sea of illogic takes awhile to navigate.
You will have a line by line analysis of your 'logic'
with a couple of days.
:-) Russ
|
| 606.81 | Victims of abuse face *double jeopardy* ... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Jan 05 1988 21:59 | 26 |
|
RE: .72
Shut up, huh? :-)
> ...ignoring abuse encourages abuse.
Are you saying that crimes of abuse are the fault of the victims
because of the fact that some victims refuse to protest abuse?
You are effectively illustrating the dilemna that victims face.
If victims protest, they are *punished* for it and are subjected
to furthur abuse.
If victims do not protest, they are *punished* by being told
that their failure to protest is the *CAUSE* of future abuse.
Now we also get to see what happens when someone points out
this phenomenon (even though she states that she is not saying
that victims should refrain from protesting.) You say to shut
up.
Interesting reaction.
Suzanne...
|
| 606.83 | a few logic errors | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Jan 06 1988 04:18 | 48 |
| RE: .76
Thank you for putting it better then I seem to be putting it...
RE: .77
"The last few replies advocating "no pain no gain" have bothered me. They seem
to imply that the woman is at fault for being the victim if she doesn't do
something about it."
Gee, I don't think I said anything like that... I hope it didn't come out
like that.
"You cannot blame the oppressed for their oppression."
I think that is too general a statement to be true.
RE: .78
"I learned that she was married in 1961 and divorced in 1963. So much either
for her claim that men are "trained and conditioned by women" into marriage, or
for her claim that women find marriage a cushy deal, or for both claims."
Huh?! That does not logically follow...
"If one is to make claims for an international conspiracy spanning centuries"
Is this what is actually being 'proved', or is this a straw man?
RE: .81
"Are you saying that crimes of abuse are the fault of the victims because of the
fact that some victims refuse to protest abuse?"
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that ignoring abuse worsens the
situation in the long run. I said nothing about whose 'fault' it was.
"Now we also get to see what happens when someone points out this phenomenon
(even though she states that she is not saying that victims should refrain from
protesting.) You say to shut up."
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that if women think that ignoring
abuse is better then protesting, then you should stop protesting and shutup.
I don't believe that you should shutup. I would not (and do not :-}) shutup,
so can you guess how I feel about protesting?
Jim.
|
| 606.84 | Blow it off, Jim. No point at all in pursuing this any furthur... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 05:23 | 10 |
|
RE: .83
Jim Baranski, if you don't think someone should shut up, then
I'd recommend not telling the person to do exactly that TWICE
in one 24 hour period.
If it isn't what you mean, then why say it?
Suzanne...
|
| 606.85 | where have I told you to shut up twice yesterday? | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Jan 06 1988 05:35 | 0 |
| 606.86 | Back to the discussion about coming forward to protest abuse... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 09:04 | 48 |
|
RE: .77 Karen Sullivan
Agree with you that it takes a great amount of courage for
a rape victim to come forward to testify in court against
the attacker.
I've never witnessed a rape trial, but I once attended a
hearing involving felony sexual assault against young children.
If you haven't ever seen what a defense attorney does to children
on the witness stand during sexual assault cases, it is enough
to turn your stomach. During the case that I observed, I saw
a child put through an experience on the stand that was easily
as bad as the assault itself (as traumatic.)
The child's parents sat helplessly in the courtroom while the
child was badgered and insulted for what seemed like forever.
After it was over, the District Attorney casually told the
child and the parents, "This is what they do in these cases."
(She was referring to attorneys who defend child molestors.)
She wasn't trying to be cold. She was just being honest. In
reality, she did a good job with the case (as well as could
be expected.)
The offender in question had already pleaded guilty to sexually
assaulting two other children and was in the process of being
sentenced when the third child came forward. He wasn't foolish
enough to confess a third time. The third child got the full
treatment on the witness stand (and it was bad.)
I feel *very strongly* that victims should come forward and
protest abuse (including rape victims and children who have
been sexually assaulted), but if you could have seen what I
saw that child go through that day, it makes you realize that
*NO* victim should be browbeaten into believing that he/she
is somehow cowardly or at fault (or is "encouraging abuse")
by not testifying.
The fact that victims face this dilemna (to come forward or
NOT to come forward, with the abuse that accompanies BOTH
CHOICES) only makes abuse that much worse. As I said before,
it ends up being double jeopardy for the victim.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response in .77 ...
Suzanne...
|
| 606.87 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 10:15 | 11 |
|
RE: .78
Thanks so much, Ann, for the research that you did regarding
the Vilar book (_The_Manipulated_Man_).
Your comments are so completely logical and articulate.
Your notes are a delight to read!
Suzanne...
|
| 606.88 | Yes, Mommie Dearest | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 06 1988 11:45 | 14 |
| re .87 re .78 Yes, thank you. I pick up where Jim left off
in a couple of days. Meanwhile..... :-)
re .0 a) Imelda Marcos
b) Evita Peron
c) Madelyn O'Hair
d) Mrs Duvalier
e) Joan Crawford
F) Elly Smeal and a few other
NOW originals & 'Followers'.
on the topic,
Russ
|
| 606.89 | why are we trying to blame others? | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Wed Jan 06 1988 11:55 | 15 |
| In all this talk of how (in some ways) a victim can stop
the victimization by protesting. No one has yet said that the
non-victims should protest. Those who see it happen, yet
do nothing because it is not thier problem (and what can
they do anyways). If we're looking to blame someone (other
than the abuser), than I would suggest that those who see and do
nothing are more to blame than those who endure the abuse.
...Karen
p.s. to those who insult others by claiming they are illogical
and that they will "prove" it later: Why don't you just wait
until you have this so-called proof before responding and leave
insults out of it? Already you have set me up to not take
your response seriously.
|
| 606.92 | Society Needs to Change | FHQ::HICKOX | Stow Vice | Wed Jan 06 1988 12:19 | 33 |
|
.89 made a very good point, no one wants to get involved in
the criminal prosecution system for various reasons anymore.
This goes for all types of crime. Whether it is due to
retribution, inconvenience, etc.... I think society as a
whole has to change (which is an educational and time process).
Regarding the report of abuse. I have seen the victims at the
Women's Center I associated with at college. It is a double
edge sword on the victim to be abused and then have to recant
the whole thing over in court.
However, I find myself going somewhat along with Jim, under
a different interpretation. Its like the death penalty ad
homocide. It is suppossed to be a deterrant. Not always
true, but maybe in some cases (we'll never know).
By not getting a lot of victims prosecuting, ending in
conviction, the abuser sometimes gets a sense that its
okay to abuse, cause they will get away with it. (this
goes for both male and female).
If more people had the courage (most times great emotional
support is needed and available) to stand up and prosecute
then perhaps it would deter the abuser. If more people
reported abuse, then that's when the help becomes available.
Like mourning death, one can not really improve the
emotional situation without facing it.
Just my opinion.
Mark
|
| 606.93 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 13:25 | 16 |
|
RE: .90
So your "100 copies" of Vilar's book are on their way (the
"many books" you speak of in your note.)
Interesting personal agenda you must have to be distributing
literature around the corporation at your own expense (or is
it?) How very, very interesting that the publication in
question contains seriously derogatory remarks about women
-- in other words, derogatory remarks about some of your fellow
Digital employees.
I'm becoming more fascinated by the moment...
Suzanne...
|
| 606.94 | A small blessing? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Jan 06 1988 13:45 | 7 |
| Suzanne,
Perhaps we should just be grateful that he isn't distributing her
subsequent book: _The_Polygamous_Sex:_A_Man's_Right_to_the_Other_
_Woman_.
Ann B.
|
| 606.95 | Men need Goddesses! | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 06 1988 14:04 | 13 |
| re .93 So, PERSONAL MAIL is NOT PRIVATE. IE *** PUBLIC ***.
Well, this is a new ballgame. Although tempted to
*reveal* in kind, my mentality is not THAT LOW.
Again, thanks for the warning, and look out for a
PIE THROWER in your building in the near future.
It just might be for someone you intimately *** KNOW ***.
re .94 Yes, sounds good. MEN are MADE for GODDESSES. Not 'women'.
polygamously yours,
Russ
|
| 606.96 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 14:49 | 20 |
|
RE: .95
Russ, you're so paranoid. I wrote most of that note *before*
you sent the mail message about your books. It was obvious
when you told Jim (in .90) that his copy of Vilar was "on the
way" (along with "many books" that were *also* "on the way"...)
Those were the exact words you used in your note. I took nothing
from mail at all.
Now, be honest here. I have been asking about your "100 copies"
of Vilar for quite awhile in this note. I was waiting for you
to tell us about them (and *knew* that you would since you mention
your intentions so frequently in this conference.) Your .90
note was the message that I knew would come.
God help me, I seem to be one of the few people who occasionally
understands what you write. It's not by choice, I assure you.
Suzanne...
|
| 606.97 | This note has become schizophrenic! | VINO::EVANS | | Wed Jan 06 1988 15:06 | 31 |
| RE: "no pain, no gain" etc.
Just to clarify my thoughts on this. Yes, girls *need* good role
models to show them how not to be victims, either as girls or women.
Certainly, if mother says to dad "You hit me, buster, and it'll
be the last time...etc.", the child does not see mother being abused,
her attitudes will be different than if dad always imposed his will
(somehow) on mom.
Yes, there *are* situations in which women can stand up and nto
take whatever (&*^ was going down. And I think we need to follow
our instincts and take those opportunities.
However, we must also follow our instincts and know when it is best
not to confront the attacker. By any logical analysis, the chances
of rape conviction are so small as to be ludicrous. And a woman's
sex life is not yet her own - whatever it may include, or not include,
it can explain why she was "asking for it", in the hands of a "good"
lawyer.
Hank, I agree that the court system is way overboard on "rights
of the accused" <we can't go on *agreeing* this way!>, but that
is relatively recent (hippy-dippy 60's stuff, ya know). Women have
traditionally had problems getting rape convictions.
Good story on this subject on Cagney & Lacey last nite. She's a
cop, fer godsakes and the DA still told her to forget going after
the guy.
--DE
|
| 606.99 | very very twisted... | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Jan 06 1988 16:27 | 38 |
| RE: .86
"*NO* victim should be browbeaten into believing that he/she is somehow cowardly
or at fault (or is "encouraging abuse") by not testifying."
You seem to be making your arguments, based on the assumption that the abuse was
a one time shot. I have been having in mind repeated abuse, such that might
happen within a family.
I suppose that is why I feel stronger that ignoring the abuse encourages it.
Would the assumption that the abuse was repeated make you feel any different?
RE: .89
"No one has yet said that the non-victims should protest."
You are right; they should protest as well. But I can imagine that if the
victim never protests, how is anyone else ever going to know? How many
victimizations happen that are never told to anyone?
RE: all: blaming abusers...
I think this has really been twisted away from what was originally said, which
something like, 'people that teach / show / set example that ignoring abuse is
the appropriate reaction to abuse (the example was mothers), are partly
responsible for the current situation, and need to be corrected / changed to the
the situation.
RE: .96
"It was obvious when you told Jim (in .90) that his copy of Vilar was "on the
way" (along with "many books" that were *also* "on the way"...)"
I think you have it wrong Suzanne, it isn't obvious to me, although I can see
how you might have gotten that idea. Also, Russ has not sent, nor is planning
to send me any books that *I* know of!.
Jim.
|
| 606.100 | Emotional Rescue | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 06 1988 17:26 | 12 |
| RE .99 The book is on the way. As a suggestion, I think it
appropriate that a new Topic 'FOR WOMEN ONLY' be created.
That topic being "Your Emotional Nature: Pros & Cons."
It could be about ways a woman treats herself. Her sex,
and the other sex. Also Children. Of both sexes.
And how emotion is tied to other brain functions.
I think this is how it's going to be resolved.
I'd say more, but have been told I say enough.
Russ
|
| 606.101 | He is authoring an agenda titled, "The Manipulative Man"... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Wed Jan 06 1988 19:36 | 9 |
|
RE: .99
See, Jim? Russ agrees with my assessment of his note to you.
I *said* I have an uncanny way of understanding what he writes.
It's something I'm learning to live with... :-) :-) :-)
Suzanne...
|
| 606.102 | It's news to me.. | YODA::BARANSKI | Oh! ... That's not like me at all! | Wed Jan 06 1988 20:13 | 0 |
| 606.103 | Manipulative and Argumentative Men | 16BITS::KRUGER | | Wed Jan 06 1988 20:38 | 46 |
| I'm still waiting for Russ to make a single valid point backing
up his wild assertion that .-? was full of illogic.
Obviously, generalizing from Vilar's life is somewhat fallacious
(yes, it IS spelled right) but it does kind of throw a shadow on
her statements. After all, if marriage is such a "cushy" position
for women, and she truly believed that, why did she (and incidentally,
many other women) divorce? I don't know any statistics, but based
on first hand experience, it is NOT the men who push for divorce.
In fact, here's an interesting tidbit to fight over: I will make
the proposition (based solely on firsthand, biased experience, that
it is generally women who will seek divorce. Men will in general
rely on inertia, and just cheat, move out, etc. but will not take
that "final step." So first, is this just a fluke sample? And second,
if you believe it is true, why is it so?
Russ, you have many interesting points to bring up, and I enjoy
your reactionary approach. However, please try a less boorish and
obnoxious tone in your notes. Of the last 15 notes, at least 4 have
been yours, and 3 (or the vast majority of them) said absolutely
nothing.
The same goes for Jim in a minor way. If you get upset because you
believe people have misinterpreted you Jim, there is no reason to
sound like an eight year old child. State your point without annoyance.
I for one have to fight the tendency to discount some things you
say merely because they are so rudely put.
The two paragraphs above bring up an interesting facet of group
dynamics. It has seemed to me that the women in this note have behaved
in an impeccably civilized fashion. And two men, Russ and Jim have
dominated (to a large extent) the conversation; partly by sheer
volume, partly by the tone. Although Suzanne has held her own,
nonetheless, I have come away with the impression that the direction
of this note is being controlled by Russ, with his somewhat dictatorial
and (to me) incomprehensible note.
Does anyone think that women should stand up in a forum like this
and say "shut up" ie flame back? I think I prefer the restraint
i have seen. It makes me feel vaguely embarrased to even have written
this note, which is not *quite* a flame. Is the end goal to be bold
enough to say (however politely) "you're off base, shut up" or is
the women's movement aimed at a different approach?
dov
|
| 606.104 | moderator/personal response :-} | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Wed Jan 06 1988 20:57 | 4 |
| Well I have appreciated the restraint with which these current
topics have been met...but it is quite reasonable to tell some
one that they are off base and ask them to stop 'talking' for
a while.
|
| 606.105 | how come when you're in love you can be so stupid | 3D::CHABOT | Wanted: IASFM Aug 1979 & Mar 1980 | Wed Jan 06 1988 22:45 | 24 |
| > I will make the proposition (based solely on firsthand, biased
> experience, that it is generally women who will seek divorce.
> Men will in general rely on inertia, and just cheat, move out,
> etc. but will not take that "final step."
Well, my also biased experience also supports this, although there
was one who refused to say anything for-nearly-ever that he wanted
to break off a non-marriage relationship. I'd been asking what
was wrong for over a year and he kept hoping I'd just get fed up.
(Thank heavens, too--the money I've saved since then!)
However, I don't hold it against all men that they might do the
same.
I remembering gossiping about a set of interconnecting triangles,
where the jilted woman from the first triangle chased and caught
her best friend's lover. Mine claimed at the time "A man would
*never*, *never* do such a thing." Of course, the hysterical thing
was, he'd tried real hard to do something very similar,
and had created another triangle elsewhere in frustration, all without
breaking up with the woman he was living with or even telling her. Oh,
well, he was a dear, if crazy, and heaven help us if we were all
suddenly granted the gift to see ourselves with no blinders -- we'd
probably all die of embarassment!
|
| 606.107 | re .78 part one | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 07 1988 04:34 | 57 |
| re .78 I believe I opined that Vilar was an intellectual. Not
the publishers.
Do you have hard info that her life had 'privileges &
servants'? While I'm waiting, isn't working at DEC a 'privilege'
Compared to some places in the World. Also, (assuming a 'poss-
ibility that 'privilege' disqualifies her) does that mean that
ANY European writer is therefore OUT OF IT. Time to throw a
way a LOT of intellectuals then! :-) Be serious. Life experience
is life experience. Include America while your're at it.
Shall we throw away Friedan. De Beauvior. Greer. Eisler.
OK, perhaps not Eisler. Her Parents were nearly taken away in
the War. But they may have had servants before then.........
I described Vilar's jobs in a build up type way. From Shoesales-
woman to secretary, to interpreter, to studies to a Hospital
Doctor. I like to go in order. Honesty is the journey from job
A to Z. I did say Doctor. 'Weasel' that.
Concluding that her Divorce has to do with 'claims' lacks
logic. Divorce happens.
Mothers raise men. And possibly 'train and condition men'.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong. Most Mothers not only raise
boys, but teach them about life. Mothers teach men ideas.
A recent note of mine suggested that the parental time ratio
for a Mother at home (full tm) raising a Child could easily
be like 21,000 hrs to a man's 6,000 hrs. Just to age 5.
Training and conditioning. Yes, quite possibly.
The lack of any input in 182 only makes me wonder - how do
Mother's Raise their boys & girls. Also Educational level factors.
BTW, when Vilar wrote her book (1971), many Women did NOT
(still) work outside the home and raised children. I imagine
a number of Women may have found Marriage (being a total depend-
ant on the Husband) a "cushy deal." I wish a man could arrange
a deal like that. BTW, I don't recall Vilar ever said "cushy
deal" in those words. But I will say she implies it. Such type
'Marriages' (totally dependent minded wives + attitudes) were
just the kind of 'arrangements' that she was GETTING ON.
Many books don't need an index or bibliography. Did the Bible's
authors do one? Originals DON'T NEED 2nd rate 'sources'. :-)
Of course some people are "married" to only those books that
list a zillion things in the back. All those 'solid facts'.
After trying to read a few US Pentagon books recently, and seeing
the 'valuable facts' in the index/biblio's, I can see WHY Casper
Weinberger Quit. Like some adults quit some Conf's because
of a million attempts for 'rules & regulations'.
> international conspiracy. Really. A poor 3rd World Mother
is capable of THAT?? Bulgarian Mom. Canadian. Singapore. US.
Influence on a man yes. Men are not THAT out of it. Nor are
Women THAT Venal. Some are capable of trying to be though....
Do quote Vilar regarding THAT QUOTE please.
> international conspiracy .... Ann, even I am not that
FARFETCHED to claim that.
May I remind you, the basenote (.0) suggests Women (some)
may possess a tyrannical *side* . A Tyrannical Nature.
And the basenote suggests that such type women may be blaming
/flaming men (allies) for problems that aren't men's problems.
Will add to this shortly.
Russ
|
| 606.108 | Serialized notes? | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Jan 07 1988 08:22 | 8 |
| RE: .107
Hey Russ, are you going to turn your answer to Ann into your
life's work?
Never seen so many I.O.U.'s for future notes in my whole life.
Suzanne... :-)
|
| 606.109 | peace, luv & understandin | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 07 1988 10:39 | 11 |
| re .108 Perhaps Ann can enlighten us to a good book on Male Dominator
Ideology, along with a book on Female Dominator Ideology.
Noters say she is well read. I think Ann may be aware
of literature that can shed light on the premises of
just which sex has an edge in influencing the other sex.
ps There's only one noter that may ever merit that I.O U.
:-)
peace,
Russ
|
| 606.110 | intelligent people can be stupid | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Thu Jan 07 1988 10:59 | 4 |
| RE: Vilars being an intellectual
Who cares? Just because she can think doesn't make her right.
|
| 606.111 | blinded by the light | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 07 1988 11:28 | 10 |
| re .110 I agree. Intelligent people need to be Worldly as well.
Different jobs. Different places. And sometimes dusting
off a little seen Premise.
Examining different views can, at times, be an experience.
Someday we may be able to hold up the 2 premises and say
" Ah, I never really thought of like that." " Never really
ever thought of it that way."
Simply put, if Vilar is refuted, the other premise shines.
Russ
|
| 606.113 | Understanding the opposition | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | renewal and resolution | Thu Jan 07 1988 15:26 | 22 |
| Whether or not I agree with Vilar's theory is not the issue. Are
we going to discuss a book in this conference that does not portray
women in a favorable manner?
I sense a desire by some of the community to suppress this discussion
which is unfortunate from my perspective. I do not have the time
to read the book but I am interested in what it has to say and the
theories behind it.
Lot's of people have made fast bucks...for example Hite...by saying
what people want to hear. That does not invalidate the research
or theory. It is possible to have a theory that is popular and
incorrect as well as a theory that is correct and unpopular.
As far as Vilar...I do not subscribe to any manipulation...either
by men or women. Her logic around influence is also flawed in reality
because she does not investigate negative influence. If indeed
our children were influenced heavily by us in their early years...we
would have clones without individuality. As a mother...I realize
I had influence but I am also very aware of the influence my ex
husband had in my son's attitudes by his absence. That was far
greater than my presence.
|
| 606.114 | we aren't discussing | 3D::CHABOT | Wanted: IASFM Aug 1979 & Mar 1980 | Thu Jan 07 1988 19:11 | 5 |
| If you can't give sources, how can anyone verify the veracity of
your statements. Indeed, this is a problem with the bible.
----------------------------
Screaming and slander are also manipulative behavior.
|
| 606.115 | backseat critics | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 07 1988 22:34 | 29 |
| re .112 > Vilar is not worthy enough to be one of them. Her premise
> is just another piece of trash that *prevents* *us*
>...........
What am I preventing ? A noter prevented .28. Bad move.
> You seem to be 'married' to her book. I'd get a divorce.
> ..if I were you. She lied to you.
It is an accepted method of criticism, the World over,
to have read the Original Work before offering criticism.
I'm only pointing that out to avoid possible embarrassment
in the future.
I was 'married' to another book, but lead & others don't
follow. Seems a certain noter is *more* than 'married'
to me. A certain 'dependancy'. I hearby "DIVORCE THEE."
Also, what were those 4 years of courses you took called
again ? ......
re .113 Yes. An Understanding. A very careful one.
Regarding closing Paragraph, adherence to above remarks
( logic ) will avoid a reminder.
re .114 Alas, quite right. Over 100 replies, and I can see
that one gender merits that " WE *aren't* Discussing."
Like someone in 178 opined about something, "Maybe
in a few centuries."
Russ
|
| 606.116 | US & THEM: any color you like | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 07 1988 23:23 | 18 |
| Due to pressure, I have been asked to refrain from further
discussion in this topic. Although this is not a 'Woman
Only' topic, in spirit I view it as such.
Therefore, for that & other reasons, I shall not enter
any notes in 606 for at least a week.
I had plans to present Vilar's table of Contents (23 chaps)
and will put them on hold.
I have no expectations regarding the further course of
this Topic. Everyone it seems, is incapable of discussing
a basenote. Aspects of a person's Nature. Specifically,
the BAD.
I learned more from my Rhodes scholar friend in 10 minutes,
than anything I've been able to learn from any 'contributer'
in 606. So much for 'Womannote literates'.
calling Oxford,
Russ
|
| 606.119 | | 8233::CONLON | | Fri Jan 08 1988 08:54 | 38 |
| RE: .113
Joyce, I can understand what you mean about the fact that
we should be willing to discuss a book that is unfavorable
to women.
Perhaps the problem was that the basenote started out by
being so hostile (and from an anonymous source who was being
hostile.)
I went back to read the basenote, and I saw all sorts of
sarcastic comments and obvious contempt for the audience that
the note addressed. Not a great way to start a discussion.
As for Hite, there was not a single solitary woman who totally
endorsed the book. There were some who said it was entirely
*untrue* from their perspective (and there were a very few --
only one that I can think of -- who said that it had some
valuable points here and there, but was statistically inaccurate
in the numbers.)
There was no *complete* discussion of the content of Hite's
book here at all (which was probably due to the volatile nature
of the subject matter and the effect it would have on discussions
here.)
So it doesn't surprise me that some are unwilling to thoroughly
discuss Vilar here either (for essentially the same reason.)
There are probably better mediums for discussions of this kind.
Notesfiles get difficult enough when things that are LIGHT YEARS
less volatile are discussed here.
I do (absolutely) see your point, though. I wonder if there
is possibly another forum where Vilar's book *could* be discussed
calmly.
Suzanne...
|
| 606.120 | Confusing | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | renewal and resolution | Fri Jan 08 1988 11:18 | 11 |
| .118 misunderstood my comments in .113 and .119 understood what
I was saying.
Maybe I have misunderstood what .118 was saying.
To clarify...and expand...I would like to discuss Vilar's theories
calmly and without sarcasm. I do feel that some members of the
community do not want to discuss it and .119 gave a valid reason
for not doing so...and .118 supported her argument.
Confusing, yes and so has this conference been lately.
|
| 606.121 | Trying to understand, little luck! | VIKING::MODICA | | Fri Jan 08 1988 11:59 | 23 |
| RE: .119 I'm confused. You wrote that "the basenote started out
by being so hostile (and from an anonymous source who
was being hostile)." So I went back and read it.
From the basenote, some extracts follow from the anonymous person
who *you* say was being hostile.
These extracts precede the passage that comes from the book to be
discussed.
"The following is an extract from a book...."
"The book is focused on the **possible** concept.."
"I would like you people to read it and comment
on it without flaming each other."...
"This is another view....."
"PLEASE PLEASE try to keep it to intelligent
peace keeping conversation."
Just what do *you* find there that is "so hostile"?
Where is the "obvious contempt" for the audience?
Where are the sarcastic comments? I don't see them!
|
| 606.122 | re .121 | 3D::CHABOT | Wanted: IASFM Aug 1979 & Mar 1980 | Fri Jan 08 1988 17:38 | 57 |
| I don't know what Suzanne might find to be hostile, but you didn't list
one that I found a bit sticky:
"... the **suppression** of women..."
That one, there. It's the emphasis on the word "suppression" which
leads one to believe the author doesn't think this supression really
exists. To women who've been denied jobs, club membership, credit,
housing, and equal pay for the very same job, implying that the
suppresson might not be real gets our hackles up.
Okay, so this is a matter of style. Yes, and style is important
for effective communication. There was no preceding context for
"suppression", so I can only assume that 1) it's emphasized for
a reason and 2) the author knows why. I still have to guess,
but from context, and from the content of the article, I must conclude
that the suppression of women is in question. I consider this to
be ~9 on a scale of denying obvious recent tragedies (refuting the
Holocaust is at the top with 10, however, it's a logarithmic scale,
like the Richter scale).
That, and triply being warned not to flame, that's pretty insulting.
Let's say you give me a rose, and say "Now do remember to
thank me for this." I think to myself, h*!!, I'm a civilized human
being, why tell me to do a basic, obvious courtesy that 3 year olds
know about, and I'm going to think you're assuming I'm a creep.
On a different tack, wasn't it Russ who said
"Flame ideas, not people." Well, okay,
so if some people feel strongly opposed or in favor of these ideas,
why not let them flame. No one's equating flaming with disagreeing,
or are they? (Is anybody? I didn't quite think so, but well, let
me know if you do.)(Is anybody irritated by me saying this? ER,
well, let me know that too!)
I tend to skip over a bunch of stuff, just looking for the roses
anyway. I very much liked Ann's analysis; I guess I don't pay too
much attention to random nastiness in other notes.
But, well, you know, things like emphasizing a pronoun as in
"who *you* say was being hostile" and
"Just what do *you* find there that is "so hostile"?"
We know who you mean, no need to emphasize. Should we envision
you poking her in the sternum with every emphasis? :-) (Or is
that 2 or 3 *.) Clearly Suzanne only speaks for herself.
Sometimes I find it quite helpful to figure we're all talking these
things instead of writing them. It also helps me get a handle on
whether I want to be a shrieker or a cool head or burst into tears
or run from the room. It really helps to tone down my melodramatic
tendencies. Try it, folks! It's fun, especially if you picture
the irate ones getting into a food fight! However, you have to
keep it to yourself, it's just a private joke.
Of course, *I*'m always cool. hahahahhahahahahhahhaha!! :-) :-)
:-) (and there's the bridge I can sell you cheap)
|
| 606.125 | Library trip # 1 | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Sun Jan 10 1988 03:58 | 69 |
| I plan to make comments on this Topic matter from source
material (ie Library researched) from this point on.
re .117 Thank you for leading me toward a professional approach.
I went to the Boston Public Library today for some information.
The following information is from the Book Review Digest
1973. (Mar. 73 - Feb. 74 inclusive Ed.) H.W. Wilson Comp.
N.Y. 1974.
VILAR, ESTHER, The Manipulated Man. 184p. '72 Farrar, Straus
301.41 Man. Woman--Sexual behavior
ISBN 0-374-20202-8 LC 72-84777
"Ms Vilar argues that men, in spite of being intelligent,
imaginative, and enterprising, are totally controlled by
.... women (who also enslave them).... (Atlantic)"
Reviewed by Phoebe Adams
Atlantic 231:103 F '73 70w
"The women's movement now has its satirist, and Vilar is
an extremely perceptive and cynical critic of the relationship
between the sexes. She... comments on a wide range of psycho-
logical and social phenomena, including war, religion, consum-
erism, and child raising; her conclusions are funny, frustr-
ating, and often disturbingly true. Even feminists, she insists
are as stupid as other women, and rarely take on any real
responsibility. It is difficult to read a book in which men
are depicted as tormented angels, but perhaps Vilar's grim
satirical approach is necessary to shock women out of their
complacency and dependency." Meta Plotnik
Library J 98:178 Ja 15 '73 210w
"There are grains of partial truth in this thesis. But
it fails to persuade when it talks of a American male/fem-
ale relations because it is a from-the-other-side-of-the-
ocean view of American life, and upper-class American life
at that. So much of it is wrong headed, short-sighted, and
limited to vast, undocumented generalizations that it will
serve best here to record its publication, (and) predict
its success in all quarters except among its victims, women."
- Doris Grumbach
New Repub 168:33 F 3 '73 550w
"[This book] is distinguished by genuine scholarship. Its
feminist sympathy is apparent - why else has it been done?-
but it pursues the point by hard work, not by swishy emo-
tionalism. And what a picture unfolds! . . . I didn't like
Ms Vilar's book at first. But as I went on, I reluctantly
liked it better. She is a legitimate cynic. her arguement
is slapdash and unsubstantiated, but pointed. The common
defects of women are -quite neatly isolated and excised...
.. According to Ms Vilar, only poor and ugly women accomplish
genuine work: they have no alternative. But her chief repre-
sentatives are from the bourgeosie. . . . Ms Vilar's book
is about the suburbs, the middle class, and tends to ignore
those who don't make it out of the city." - Mary Ellman
N Y Rev of Books 20:18 N 1 '73 1000w
New Yorker 48:103 Ja 20 '73 150w
TLS p1019 S 1 '72 350w
re .78 Ann, I believe some of your one line comments from some
of the above sources, were taken out of context; either
by yourself, or your source material. If possible I would
appreciate full (or fuller) book review quotes in the future.
Thank you.
Russ
|
| 606.128 | New York Review of Books | 3D::CHABOT | We've come to XPEX more of you | Mon Jan 11 1988 14:04 | 9 |
| I read the NYR for a few years, but never found it a bastion of
feminism, especially in its reviewing flavor. Or in plain words,
most reviews of books were anti-feminist, that I noticed. (Of course,
this is just me.)
But "distinguished by genuine scholarship", and yet it has no
footnotes?
No longer a subscriber,
lsc
|
| 606.129 | A few elaborations | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Jan 12 1988 13:15 | 235 |
| Since Russ had stated that he was not going to reply in 606 for a
week, it seemed unkind to reply to him before then, but I notice
that that statement has been removed from here, (and my disk was
down through Monday,) so I don't have to fret about that.
Russ,
I was being charitable when I suggested that Vilar's publisher had
been so slapdash as to label her an "intellectual". How, pray tell,
can you call someone an intellectual who claims that all women are
unalterably "imbecilic", yet is a woman? At best her premise is
overblown; alternatively, she is an imbecile, and no intellectual.
You cannot have it both ways. Do you understand?
Further, "intellectual" is not a title quickly or easily achieved.
I would have been more impressed if you had said that "While earning
a living first as a shoe salesman, then as a secretary, and a
translator, and even while she was studying for her M.D., she took
part in the intellectual life of Munich by actively participating
in <something-impressively-intellectual-sounding>." This is what
Mary Wollstonecraft did. To be an intellectual by age thirty-five
is a great thing; I see no evidence that Esther Vilar achieved this.
Argentinean culture, especially before World War II, was one of
those societies in which everyone from the middle class on up had
servants. Do you understand what life is like when you have servants?
I'll give you an extreme example: You drop your book. You do not
pick it up. You clap your hands. A servant picks it up. That,
Russ, is "privilege".
I felt my deduction was fully vindicated when I read the quoted
portion of the "New Republic"'s review. That segment began, "it
fails to persuade when it talks of American male/female relations
because it is a from-the-other-side-of-the-ocean view of American
life, and upper-class American life at that." The "New York Review
of Books" made a similar observation. These are in addition to
"Books and Bookmen"'s claim that her terms were only "appropriate
to the Latin American bourgeoisie" which I cited before. You see,
when you have servants and privilege, you have a harder time
understanding the life of the average woman -- or average man for
that matter.
She might have been able to overcome the worldview imposed upon
her by such a cosseted life style, but, since several of the
reviewers of her work were able to spot it, clearly she did not.
(It can be overcome; James Tiptree Jr. (she of the dropped book)
did it.)
I do not understand your statement, in which I gather you were
referring to Europeans, "Shall we throw away Friedan. De Beauvior [sic].
Greer. Eisler." since Friedan and Eisler are Americans, de Beauvoir
is French, and Greer is Australian. Further, if what one is doing is
"culling", then one removes the bad from the mass, one does not sweep
away everything. Or are you saying that I, as well as you, should never
use judgment?
You wrote, "Concluding that her Divorce has to do with 'claims' lacks
logic. Divorce happens."
Russ, divorces don't just happen; they don't fall out of the sky.
Divorces have causes and instigators. The cause may be actions/lack
of actions on the part of 1. the wife, 2. the husband, or 3. both.
The instigator may be 1. the wife, 2. the husband, or 3. both. The
cause and the instigator are independant variables.
Let's look at some of Vilar's theses. One: "What a man fears most
is freedom." If that thesis were valid, then her husband would
never have divorced her. Two: "A woman will make use of a man
whenever there is an opportunity." If that thesis were valid, then
she would never have divorced her husband. Three: "Men have been
trained and conditioned by women..." combined with "A woman is a
man's scale of values..." This removes the possibility that her
husband had ceased to be an `opportunity' for her.
Therefore, her divorce voids her theses *as stated*. (They are
direct quotes taken from her during interviews.) If she were an
honest intellectual, she would have modified the scope of her
assertions to map to her own reality. She did not.
I denigrate her claims because I observe that they are not something
I see and experience in my own life. Consider my mother. Here is
a woman who married her highschool sweetheart, had two children, has
lived in nice suburbs since 1951, and has never worked at a paying
job since her husband graduated from college.
JUST the sort of person Vilar's is talking about, right? Wrong.
She has had unpaid jobs as cake decorator, scout leader, choir
assistant, film editor, calligrapher, fund raiser, and I don't
know what all. None of these jobs permit of the qualities that
Vilar ascribes to ALL women: laziness, selfishness, and stupidity.
Just a few years ago, when she had just earned a little money by
selling some handicrafts she had made, she confided that it made
her happy to do so because now she could buy my father Christmas
presents with her own money. It had *always* made her uncomfortable
to spend his money in order to give him presents, ~although he
always enjoyed them, and it never seemed to bother him.~
This is not someone who fits Vilar's image, EVEN THOUGH she is in
a social and economic position to do so.
This is how wrong Vilar is: She claims, "Women always work with
a net under them: they can let themselves fall. Women work for
luxuries..." As the people in this conference will tell you, this
is false-to-fact. It is not only false here at DEC, but it is false
across the wide world. One billion people in this world are Chinese
subsistance farmers. What net is under the half billion of them
who are female? What "luxuries" does a *subsistance* farmer work for?
Now I will tell you AGAIN that Vilar is right. Partially. There are
women out there who fit her description. We've all seen them. I've
seen them, and heard them, and smelled them. But my diagnosis is
the same as Greer's, and Stone's, et aliae.
Amanda Cross wrote recently to this point. She pointed out that (female
example) wives and (male example) cowboys are romanticized in our
society. This is done, she stated, by taking the most negative
feature of each situation, i.e., the subservience of the wife and
the loneliness of the cowboy, and developing a romantic vocabulary
(This is an "Eng. Lit." term.) to describe it.
Now we begin to see. A man once wrote a book explaining why he had
converted to Judaism from Roman Catholicism. In it he spoke of how
he had first become a Roman Catholic priest. He said something like:
~My religion had troubled me for a long time. I was offered the
`medicine' of a deeper faith, so I swallowed it, bottle and all.~
This is what those horrid women whom Vilar describes have done. They
have swallowed the prescription of romantic subservience, bottle and
all.
Now I'll show you something else. Here are some traits: laziness,
selfishness, stupidity, and an inability to feel. Here is a description
of work: "rarely involves effort or responsibility, although [the
worker] makes [the worker] believe it involves both." Guess what?
These terms can be used to describe men. (In fact, the quote even
describes the failing of a political movement called (if I remember
correctly) Utilitarianism.) Yet Vilar used them to describe women.
In fact, these are terms that describe human beings. (Laziness is
not the character flaw some people think it is. See my note in
DSSDEV::PHILOSOPHY, 29.0 ("Nutshell Theories"), and follow-up mentions
in 29.1 and 29.6.) Vilar has observed human traits in women, and
ignored the same traits in men.
And now that we know that, we understand Vilar. She has idealized
men. This is understandable, since it is part of that "romantic
vocabulary" of subservience which she has bought into -- and thinks
all women have -- except that she is so far inside it that she does
not realize that there is a outside at all. *This* is why she had
over-generalized, and ignored what was under her nose. And this is
why you, Russ, find her so agreeable. She has flattered you, but,
since she did not do it *deliberately* (as it were), you did not
realize that it was flattery, you thought it was The Truth. And
you're not about to give up such a flattering Truth, are you?
You wrote, "Many books don't need an index or bibliography. Did the
Bible's authors do one? Originals DON'T NEED 2nd rate 'sources'. :-)"
I gather that you did not read 518.4, or you would have realized that
the Bible *does* have external sources. In addition to what I
mentioned there, the story of the Flood is from the Epic of Gilgamesh,
that of the Tower of Babel is from Babylonian mythology, and the
Book of Job is entirely foreign-made. Since Vilar cites no external
sources, I conclude that she did no real research, a truly, um,
`unfortunate' decision, given that the topic has been discussed
and written down ever since women invented writing. Perhaps she
would never have even started writing that particular book if she
had read Sojourner Truth's famous "Ain't I a Woman?" speech.
Let's see. You wanted some examples of male dominance writing.
How about 615.11 by Russ Pollitz? "Pipe down or I'm sending a
crumping team after you!"
How about _Mein_Kampf_ by Adolf Hitler (for a sympathetic view)?
How about _The_Subjugation_of_Women_ by John Stuart Mill (for an
unsympathetic view)?
How about _President's_Commision_on_the_Status_of_Women_, released
in 1963 (for an objective, documentation-only view)? This, by the
way, makes hash of your claim that Vilar, writing in 1972, was in at
the beginning of the women's movement. *I* know better; you should
too, but I would guess that you are too young to remember the social
situation in the sixties.
Let's see. You also wanted some examples of female dominance writing.
(This is harder. It's far less likely.)
How about _The_First_Sex_ by Elizabeth Gould Davis? Ah, dear, that
was published in 1971; it gets harder to think of Vilar as original,
doesn't it? Here's what one feminist thinks of it, "[B]oth facts
and conclusions are arguable..." This is far from the wholehearted
endorsement *you* might expect, but it is *just* what I would expect.
Please stop blathering about how since mothers are with their children
for so many hours a day that they are the cause of sexism, or
whatever it is you intend to convey. I'm not a mother; I'm with
children only a few hours a week. But that time goes something like:
Where are your boots? Where are your brother's boots? You shouldn't
put on your mittens before you try to zip your jacket, you know.
Let your brother in first; he's sitting in the middle. Please be
more quiet; I'm right next to you; I can hear you fine. Hold my
hand while we cross here. Shall I hang up you jacket for you? Your
feet are muddy, so don't stand on the seat. What would you like to
order? Fine, now tell the waitress. Don't spray when you talk; I
don't like being spat on. Please don't kick the seat; I find it
very annoying. You can eat your pickle after you finish that half
of your sandwich. I can't understand you when you talk with your
mouth full. Here, wipe your hands. Hold still while I wipe your chin.
Have you finished your milk? No potato chips until you finish your
sandwich. Yes, you may wrap them up for later; you can do that
yourself, right? That money is for the waitress, to show her that
she did a good job. Wait just a minute while I unlock this. Oh,
look! There's a backhoe! You'll be going to that school in a few
years. Here's your cupcake back. See you later.
This is not how one instills a world view. This is how one instills
behavior and personal values -- manners, if you like. The closest
I can come to that is to talk about their dentist, who is a woman.
I can't even "remind" them that the waitress is not a girl; none of
the waitresses who have served us have been anywhere near that close
to puberty. I don't write the TV programs they see (a zillion smurfs
and one smurfette) or the books they read (Dick runs and Sally trips)
or the sermons they get in church (woman was born of man to be a
fit helpmeet for him (Is a "helpmeet" a servant? It *sounds* like
it is.)) or the lessons they're taught in school (Tom, you know
what three plus three is. Jane, you can make your letters nicer
than that.).
What women teach is the personal. What the world teaches is the
world view. And for many of us, the two are in conflict for just
that reason.
Ann B.
|
| 606.130 | It's out to Gino's for supper tonight. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Jan 12 1988 13:30 | 8 |
| I mentioned that the average full-time American housewife spends
50 hours a week on housework. I now mention that the average
American woman who is also in the paid workforce full-time has
managed to cut her housework load down to 35 hours a week. At
least part of this, I suspect, comes from substituting money for
labor.
Ann B.
|
| 606.131 | more! more! | DECWET::JWHITE | mr. smarmy | Thu Jan 14 1988 00:44 | 5 |
|
re: .129
Marvellous!
|
| 606.132 | Wow! | 16BITS::KRUGER | | Fri Jan 15 1988 00:59 | 4 |
| re .129
Ditto!
Bravo! Touche! C'est bon!
|
| 606.133 | Library trip # 2 | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 21 1988 01:39 | 68 |
| Book Review Index (1972-74)
Vilar, Esther The Manipulated Man/B+B v18-D '72 Books & Bookmen
MM/Obs. Jl 2 '72 - p31 Observer
MM/PW - v202 - N 27 '72 p32 Publisher's Weekly
MM/TLS - S 1 '72 P1019 Times Literary Suppl.
MM/AM - v128 - Ap 7 '73 p311 America
MM/Atl - v231 - F '73 - p103 Atlantic
MM/BL - v69 - Je 1 '73 - p23 Booklist
MM/BW(WP) v7 - F 4 '73 - p1 Bk World (Wash. Post)
MM/CSM - v65 - Ja 15 '73 - p8 Chr Sci Monitor
MM/KR - v40 - D 1 '72 - p1402 Kirkus Reviews
MM/LJ - v98 - Ja 15 '73 p178 Library Journal
MM/NY - v 48 - Ja 20 '73 p103 New Yorker
MM/NYRB v20 - N 1 '73 - p 18 NY Review of Books
MM/New R v168 - F 3 '73 - p33 New Republic
MM/NYTBR - Mr 24 '74 - p32 NY Times (Bk Rev.)
Interviews Sales
NY Times 6/13/72 Europe, W. World
Publ's wkly 1/29/73 500,000+ (as of 1/73)
Reviews:
Vilar has written .... a searing one. NYTBR'74 Ingrid Bengis
There are some neat and pointed passages ... woman's weakness is
characterized in terms esp. appropriate to .. bourgeoisie ... they
don't even *seem* to apply in Britain... Bks & Bkmn'72 Ray Durgnat.
Women "by the age of 12 ... have planned a future ...(which let's)
him do all the work." Times Lit Suppl.'72. Another sociological
shootout, with men as the heroes this time, and women as the
villains...(a raging success in Europe)... it soon becomes apparent
...(the work) is heartfelt; Vilar, astonishingly, is utterly sincere.
NEW YORKER'73. Vilar is .. extremely perceptive .. of the relation-
ship between the sexes. She builds her work around the stereotypes
of man as ... creative, sensitive, and thinking ..., and .. woman
as .. unfeeling, mentally atrophied, (and) manipulative. Her
conclusions are ..frustrating and often disturbingly true. Perhaps
Vilar's approach is necessary to shock women out of their complacency
and dependency. LIBRARY J'73. Meta Plotnik.
If this is indeed women's ..occupation, and men are (led).. into
believing in this fraudulent relationship to women, then the resultant
sexual inequality is clearly women's fault. ...she is accustomed
to "endless power over man,"... any "renunciation of power and
prestige" painful. Intellectuals of the Women's Liberation Movement
are fighting the wrong enemy when they single out men. The real
foe is women. ...(who) will not change "for they have no reason
for doing so." Vilar declares ...that the Movement has failed,
there are no underprivileged women, only men who are exploited and
victimized ... Certainly there (is) .. truth in this thesis. But
it fails to persuade *when*...... it will serve best to .. predict
its success in all quarters... NEW REPUBLIC'73 Doris Grumbach.
The real maverick to watch out for is Esther Vilar. ..Yet the
further one reads one recognizes that her deliberate rudeness is
a literary device used to *shatter* self pitying deceptions and
self deceptions and bring about the ultimate feminist awareness:
that women, not men, are responsible for the *real* inequality
between the sexes. Vilar writes: " The 'woman with a family' -
* the woman who supports a healthy man and his children all her
life* -- is practically unknown in the professional world . . .
Unlike men, women can choose ...whether they want to do drudgery
or not. It is logical that most of them decide against it..."
CHR SCI MONITOR'73
|
| 606.134 | slight digression | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Thu Jan 21 1988 02:33 | 7 |
| A friend gave me "Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady" to read
the other day.
I have been thinking about the concept of "malkins" in that book.
Have other people read it? At first I thought the theme was a cliche
(bright erratic career woman is above all traditional female pursuits),
but there's a lot more to it than that, and it's very funny.
|
| 606.135 | Interviews | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 21 1988 04:13 | 97 |
| London NY Times Interview
June 13, 1972
By Judith Weinraub
London -- Esther Vilar was awakened in her hotel room (recently).
A group of hatted English matrons in their 50's ... asked her to
leave the country.
" They told me I am insulting English women. I've even had to
change my hotel room," the surprised Miss Vilar said.
The cause of all the commotion is Miss Vilar's book, "The Man-
ipulated Man," which has just been puplished amid considerable con-
troversy in England. Vilar takes the position that women's liberation
has got it all wrong. " They're getting nowhere because they have
the male idea about women. They make women the object of male charity.
..A married woman always has the choice to work or not. Men never
do.... What I want to see is even one woman who is permanently willing
to let her husband stay home to look after the children, while she
goes out to work."
On housework: Housework is so easy that in psychiatric clinics
it is traditionally the job for (m...ns) who are unfit to do any
other kind of work." (She says the essentials can be done in 2 hrs).
.. According to Vilar, if women are guilty, it is because men let
them be. : A man ... needs some kind of system to tell him he is
worth something. A woman is a man's scale of values, but if he doesn't
have a woman to manipulate him, he will find another system."
Vilar was born in Argentina of German refugee parents who separated
when she was 3 ( "A broken home like Kate Millet's and Gloria
Steinem's"). In 1960 she went to W. Germany on scholarship...
She married and divorced the German author, Klaus Wagn ( "I didn't
break up with the man, just with marriage as an institution").
" People are afraid to read my book. Women's liberation is much
more flattering for men. They love to hear that they are tyrants
because they are educated that way."
On various women's spheres:
Her intelligence - " Women's stupidity is so overwhelming that any-
one who comes into contact with it will become, in a way,
contaminated by it."
Her ability to feel - " If she let's herself feel, she might make
the wrong choice of husband, and it's the most important choice
she will ever make."
Her love of children - It's a selfish love; if women really loved
children, they would adopt them rather than insisting on having
their own."
" It's a very rude book. It is black and white. I meant it to
be. Otherwise nobody would have listened. I'm not interested in
revolution. I don't want to change the rules.; people must find
their own solutions. I just wanted to bring it to the *consciousness*
that it is men who are enslaved -- not women."
Publisher's Weekly Interview
1/29/73
By Barbara Bannon
Esther Vilar
--------------------------------------------------------------
" Men have been trained and conditioned by women not
unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs
into becoming their slaves."
THE MOST OUTSPOKEN OPPONENT of the ideology of Women's Lib ...
has got to be Esther Vilar. Dr Vilar's thesis (above^) ... is
making the rounds of talk shows across the country.
Vilar is attractive ... soft spoken but unwilling to give one
inch in her view of the relationship between the sexes. " A woman
will make use of a man whenever there is an opportunity. A woman
is a human being who does not work," she says, and she means it.
'The Manipulated Man is her ... first success. Half a million
copies now have been sold... translated into 21 languages.
The reactions from women readers " are either very positive
or very negative. Men are much more in between in their reactions,
more cautious. I wrote (much of) the book in the U.S., where I spent
a year gathering material that convinced me American men are the
most manipulated of all by their women. What I put into the book
is what I have thought all my life. Ever since Simone de Beauvoir
and 'The Second Sex' it has been popular to say women are suppressed
by men, but I never saw any signs of it. When I studied medicine
in Buenos Aires only 10% of the Med students were women and I always
felt we were being treated better than the men. I think I am not
any better than the rest of women. There have been many times when
I took advantage of being a woman. If you're writing a book like
this you must know what you're talking about."
(to be continued)
|
| 606.136 | Affirmative action idea: Support Men at Home. | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Jan 21 1988 05:22 | 46 |
| Publisher's Weekly cont.
" Do I enjoy being a woman? I feel guilty at being part of the
exploiter's sex, but it is a much greater joy than being a man would
be. They have a terrible time of it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I did
not have too much opportunity personally to exploit men."
Vilar was married for 2 years to writer Klaus Wagn, and they have
a 7 yr old son.
" In my eyes married women have a very bad image. They are exploiters
of the male labor force. That is why I decided to get a divorce.
Now my ex-husband and I are on very good terms. He loves my ideas.
Of course a man can be just as exploited by a woman who lives with
him without being married to him. He may even feel more guilty and
more under her control because of that."
... "I had to be rude to be heard. I had to put things as strongly
as I did to be heard above the loud Women's Libber's. Women's Libber's
are just imitating the male ideas of women from Freud and Lenin
on. My book is the first *real* Women's Lib book because it makes
clear to women that they can liberate themselves if they want to,
but they have to do it from within themselves."
Many women can work well when they have to do so to support
themselves, Vilar admits, " and women did a fantastic job of replacing
men in a work situation during the war, but afterwards most of them
retreated immediately."
" As for the term 'male chauvinist,' no such thing really exists.
Men love to be called that by women because it makes them feel big
and strong, which women have always told them they must be. Its
use by women is just another kind of trick to make men do what they
want them to do. Women get so many advantages out of the system
as it works for them today that I do not have much hope for many
of them wanting to change things and really liberate themselves
from the manipulation of men.
" It would take a lot of character for a man to be emancipated
enough to stay home and do the housework or take care of young
children. Not many men would dare to do that. And as for married
women who work, how many of them would be willing to go out to work
to support a perfectly healthy non-working husband every day of
their life until retirement at 65? And yet that is what women expect
men to do for them."
There is, however, one area in which Vilar is sister under the
skin to Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem and every stenographer in
an office pool. She is a firm believer in women making every bit
as much money as men in the same job situation.
Publisher's Weekly - B. Bannon
1/73
|
| 606.137 | Why did she disappear? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Jan 21 1988 12:20 | 4 |
| Hasn't she done *anything* since 1974? I know she currently has
nothing in print in this country.
Ann B.
|
| 606.139 | mother Joyce | YODA::BARANSKI | Riding the Avalanche of Life | Sat Jan 23 1988 16:58 | 15 |
| RE: .113
"As a mother...I realize I had influence but I am also very aware of the
influence my ex husband had in my son's attitudes by his absence."
Hmmm... I think that you are probably more valuable then you realize, Joyce! :-)
Is this comparing apples and oranges? mother's presence < father's absence?
Would a better comparision be mother's presence <?> father's presence, or
mother's absence <?> father's absence?
When you look at it that way, were the children better off with you, or with
their father; without you, or without their father?
Jim.
|
| 606.140 | Aren't WE hungry | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Jan 25 1988 04:58 | 19 |
| re .128 What teacher told you that it is a sign of 'genuine
scholarship' that footnotes or sources be used?
How about Socrates? Plato? Einstein? Sarte and
Nietzsche rarely used them. Shall I go on?
If the NYROB's is so anti-feminist/(female), then
why on earth did you read it? For many years?
Prove your point by specific quotes please, this
discussion is in high gear now.
Also, why is it the 'genuine scholars' always oppose
the individual 'geniuses' that Move & Motivate Humankind?
IE Einstein & Curie.
To quote Nietzsche, "Too long I sat *hungry* at the scholars
table."
Russ
|
| 606.141 | Asimov was more optimistic. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Jan 25 1988 13:06 | 12 |
| Plato was Socrates' student. Do you remember who taught Socrates?
(If you read Eisler, you should know.)
Was it Einstein or Newton who said that, if he saw farther than
those who had come before him, it was because he himself stood on
the shoulders of giants? I know Einstein was influenced by
Michaelson and Morley, to give but one source.
It was Nietzsche who wrote, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves
contend in vain."
Ann B.
|
| 606.142 | Didn't CS Lewis dedicate 'Screwtape' to Tolkien? | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Jan 25 1988 14:03 | 19 |
| re .141 Socrates mother.
Does anyone really think that any 'original' book
has not borrowed some from 'external sources'? Be
serious. Of course other things are involved and we
all know that.
Vilar learned, lived, observed, saw, & reported. She
probably took one last look at 'Americans' and wisely
decided to attend to more important affairs closer to
home. The personal World. The caring one.
She wrote a couple of German books in '77 and '82.
The works were probably related to her studies of
"man's delight in nonfreedom."
Nietzsche has many quotes I'd love to print here, but
my 'gentlemanly' instincts say to hold the fingers - darn.
Russ
|
| 606.143 | quoting N. will get you silly places | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Mon Jan 25 1988 21:43 | 5 |
| Yes, how about "Blessed are the sleepy, for they shall soon drop
off."
I think the point is, what scholarship did Vilar do? Whom does
she credit? Or are we to just assume.
|
| 606.144 | I am discussing | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Jan 25 1988 22:30 | 20 |
| re .143 The point is not a single woman here has said something
like, "I know a woman who exercises power toward her
man in a cruel and unjust way. She abuses him emotionally
and deceives him by not being honest. She blames him for
problems that are not his, with such problems being her
responsibility. She is hard, cold, and unfeeling toward
him. She uses sex as a weapon - sex as a reward. Rarely
if ever, is that 'loving' experience a genuine one - it's
just another type of manipulation she employs with him.
He is little more than a cooperative henpecked slave to
him. He falsely thinks it is love. It is not. It is
ruthless and brutal blackmail. She is a leech."
I know a woman like that. And it is not pretty.
Any more questions?
Russ
|
| 606.145 | re .144 "hard cold unfeeling" woman | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Mon Jan 25 1988 23:22 | 7 |
| Russ, I don't see how this follows from my note, unless perhaps
it is Vilar you are referring to.
Oh, well, I've known men like that too, but I've never said anything
like it before in this notesfile. People are like that. Not just
men, and not just women. But what does this have to do with Vilar's
footnotes (or whatever it is I usually bicker about)?
|
| 606.146 | huh? | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Jan 25 1988 23:31 | 5 |
| russ,
i'm having a lot of trouble understanding exactly what your point
is.
liz
|
| 606.147 | | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Mon Jan 25 1988 23:46 | 23 |
| re .145 The point has been made that Vilar did not use
footnotes in her work. Shall I quote from some
more interviews or book reviews to help you
(& other readers) out further on this matter?
re .146 Liz, the basenote suggests that (some) women
have a cruel side. And that (some) women have
endorsed the various teachings of the Women's
Liberation Movement. Those specific teachings
being the creation of man as an enemy to woman.
The basenote says that such attitudes against
men are off base and that men should be viewed
as allies. In life and in Liberation Movements.
Liz I think that a topic note about the tyrannical
sides of a person should include stories (or obs-
ervations) about behavior that we know about that is
like that. If anything, .144 was the first such
story. I hope that this clarifies some difficulties
you may have had in that note.
Russ
|
| 606.148 | Oh *for heavens sake*!!! | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Mon Jan 25 1988 23:52 | 7 |
| Russ, just because you know *one* woman who is like that
and I know many other women who are not...so what. I think
you have been told over and over that the majority of those
responding on the subject of Vilar find her invalid for
a wide variety of reasons. I would appreciate it if you would
drop the subject and turn your interests in some other direction.
Thankyou, Bonnie
|
| 606.149 | | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | | Mon Jan 25 1988 23:57 | 15 |
| Russ,
I never thought that the point of the Women's Liberation Movement
was "the creation of man as an enemy to woman". My interpretation
of the wlm is that women should realize that they have a choice
in life. In order to be valid people, they no longer need to conform
to traditional roles that have been played out for generations.
My personal opinion is that some men help in this transformation,
and others don't. Similarly, some women help and some don't.
We all know people who are nice and people who aren't. Do you really
feel that .144 added value to the conversation?
Liz
|
| 606.150 | moving on to NOW | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Tue Jan 26 1988 00:17 | 17 |
| RE .148 I find Eisler invalid. Not Vilar. As I told you
recently, I always compromise up - never down. It's
pretty hard to invalidate an unread book. But it's
harder still to resist the temptation to stop when
people tell me 'over & over' that so & so is 'invalid'.
Since .125, the discussion has gotten serious. At
least 4 women have shown interest within the last day
or so. And in my opinion, the topic is under beautiful
control now.
I can focus on the Women's liberation Movements now
anyhow. Besides *I* was asked the questions and who
am I to deny trying to answer them.
re .141 If the reason for intellectual discourse is instruction
and growth, then nothing is served by insults. We can
agree to disagree.
Russ P.
|
| 606.151 | don't mind me, I'm in field test | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Tue Jan 26 1988 00:28 | 67 |
| Why should Vilar&footnotes (and noone, least of all me could not
remember the replies on this tone) prompt a note about an
unfortunate personal episode you have witnessed?
You referred to my note, I want to know why.
If you aren't talking about me, and you aren't talking
about Vilar, I want to know why my note prompted that. I did not
refer to Vilar's claims. Are you referring to a particular situation
of which you know Vilar is acquainted? (Not the general case, but
the exact same individuals.) What is the relation here?
By the way, if you are referring to me, which I sincerely doubt,
I will request that .144 be deleted, as you have no first hand
knowledge of my behavior.
Now many of us know bad people. Why are you holding up *all* of
the women in womannotes for chastising because they have not described
the worst women they know? I think this is completely uncalled
for behavior, and you owe all of us an apology. This is a topic
of interest for you--that there was a manipulative woman you know--
just because it has not come up before is no reason to accuse us
of all being biased against such notes. For those of us who have
known such a person, it is often very painful to think of or to
write of. Furthermore, most of us know that such a person is not
representative of their gender, and see no need to dwell on this
hatefulness. Now, sometimes there will be one who needs to tell
because they need to find help. This is fine. One can always
do this in a supportive environment--look for reassurance. But
help is not making all people feel bad because there are some bad
people. Because no one has brought up the topic is no indication
that the women and men here would be adverse to discussing it, but
only so long as we are allowed to be our actually normally very
warm and loving selves. Placing us in an adversary position is
unlikely to allow this, but will probably get you a lot of bickering.
Vilar is unfortunately not a good way to introduce this subject.
I myself am so fond of books that I give over much of my living
space to them, and while it is a idea that was hard to convince
me of, it is often better to describe a personal situation, than
it is to quote from a book. Especially if the subject is known
before hand to be one to aggravate people. It really depends upon
how you want to be perceived--as asking for advice in understanding
a bad thing or as presenting a book for discussion. If you ask
for help, many people will open their hearts to you even though
they may disagree with you. If you want to discuss books, you will
find people willing to actively disagree with you in objective manner.
(And some of us will just argue til the cats come home.) (Where
are those cats, and why are they out in the snow?)
Manipulative people can be disasterous to those around them. However,
I have never used sex to manipulate anyone, and I will not be made
to feel guilty because some people do this bad thing. I do not
know why some people use sex to be manipulative; I am not sure how
to help them. I have a pretty good idea that their victims can
be helped, although it is a slow process, involving anger at times,
and many missteps on the way to recovery. Ah, so is life.
I myself don't remember any "specific teachings being the creation of
man as an enemy to woman" in the "Women's Liberation Movement".
I remember some consciousness raising about how I could take care
of myself, but that places neither party in the tyranical or enemy
positions. I'm a person, you're a person, wouldn't you like to
be a person too, sorts of things, but not this is the face of the
enemy sorts of things. Really, honestly, there was no Z.O.W.I.E.
("An _actor_ for President?!") :-) :-)
[It's just that time in the product cycle for me. Wait, just wait,
until 2 Feb.]
|
| 606.152 | tee hee | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Tue Jan 26 1988 01:07 | 19 |
| re .150
We seem to have crossed postings...I'll risk boring everyone by
posting again so soon [hint: if you don't want to bore people, don't
do what I do :-) ].
>And in my opinion, the topic is under beautiful
> control now.
>I can focus on the Women's liberation Movements now
> anyhow.
Oh, Russ, you're such a card! Nobody's gotten the point at all--I
feel so dumb about it myself.
Look, folks, this is a *man* in "control" of *woman*notes. Now do
you get it! It's hysterical!
Thanks, I've needed a good laugh. Life was getting too serious.
See what happens, when you take a joke too seriously--endless bickering.
|
| 606.154 | feminists speak up! | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 27 1988 13:53 | 44 |
| The statements that follow are from the 7-8/87 Ms magazine
letters section. Topic:
The Best and Worst of the Women's Movement.
"...What bothers me..are some of the most ideological parts
of the movement--or, at least the rigidity of some feminists,
who were not open to a broad range of people..."
- Carol Bellamy, VP of Morgan Stanley, former president
of the city council of NY.
"What I'm upset about is sexual extremism - those who would
make a fetish out of sexual politics. Although women have
reason..for anger...those who try to make a rigid ideology
of Woman Against Man throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As it was wrong to define us..by marriage, motherhood, and
the home, those who *deny* these values dangerously distort
the values of the movement. Extremism is diversionary and
dangerous. ...The dangers are the threat to civil liberties
and constitutional freedom..(for all)." -- Betty Friedan
"..an occasional militant display of behavior can disturb
people.." -- Geraldine Ferraro
"What I object to is the dichotomy that was made--by some
radical feminists--between being a sexually desirable woman
and being ideologically correct. It was a hard-nosed politics
that left out women who wanted to have babies. ...I found it
painful to be attacked by feminists.
We shouldn't forget how far we've come. It's so important."
-- Erica Jong, who
once debated former NOW president E. Smeal on TV about the
subject of 'Motherhood.'
"What makes me unhappy sometimes is dogmatism, correct-line
thinking. Every schism in the movement--age, class, ethnic
origin, sexual preference, mothers vs child-free--that has
given us sleepless nights and agonies. They've all come from-
what every movement has probably struggled with--a Central
Committee mentality about 'What is a feminist?' "
-- Robin Morgan, feminist author, poet, activist.
Russ
|
| 606.155 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Wed Jan 27 1988 17:25 | 24 |
| Russ, I think the point of the previous note may have been to suggest
that many of the women in this notesfile are rigid, man-hating,
angry, exclusive feminist separatists.
I won't deny that you feel that way, but as someone who has worked with
some very angry militant feminist separatists, I only wish that there
were a few here for the sake of comparison.
Many of them would sneer at us for even working at DEC -- it's 'taking
money from the patriarchy'. Many of them would ridicule us for
frittering away our time in a notes conference when there are hungry
women on the streets, and battered women needing shelter. Many
of them would utterly disdain those of us who "put energy into men"
the way we do in this file.
I respect those women who have had the courage to be at the vanguard of
the women's movement. I've learned a lot from them. At the same time,
I don't enjoy being around them very much either because they tend to
make me feel guilty, useless, frivolous, and uncomfortable.
Holly
|
| 606.156 | For the Community | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 27 1988 18:58 | 45 |
| Holly, I do not feel that way. The basenote suggests
that some women have a cruel side, and also suggests that
the Women's Liberation Movement has not done the best of
jobs (at least in the early stages) of viewing or treating
men as allies. Allies to help women (& men) reach the various
freedoms that Liz recently expressed. The freedom to choose.
The freedom for both sexes to get 'traditional' role expect-
ations off their backs. And so forth.
In short:
a) Some Women have a tyrannical side.
b) Some parts of the Women's Liberation Movement
have not treated men as allies.
And that's all. I believe .154 is consistent with point
b) of the topic note .0.
And .154 has women leaders and other women involved in
the movement expressing some views about the 'not so good.'
It is my hope that points a) and b) are what this topic
essentially is about. I am done talking about the very
emotional part - point a).
I have no assumptions about the people of this or any
other Conference except the prejudice that people are basically
good.
Since I am not into psychology, it has been painful to see
that my intents upon focusing upon the topic have--at times--
been misunderstood. I apologize to anyone who has experienced
hurt or pain by anything that I have said. In this topic or
any other. It is when I (and others) stray from discussion
of the topic (& the evolving developments related to the base-
note) that someone needs to say something.
I feel that I have done a very good job in this topic
starting with note .125. It has not been easy to read the
notes with everything from patronizing attitudes to accusations
to 'apologize now' to my supposed pushing of agendas to attacking
ideas and not discussing them to personal attacks to 'dominating'
to 'holding up' the women in the Conf, to being misogynist(???)
and so on. Whew!! And I'm sure that that's not all.
Quite a lot of charges from a lot of very intelligent people
with imaginations in overdrive!
Heck -- that's alot of headaches to deal with and I think
such words do not apply to me -- at all.
I do not think that way -- my values would never allow it.
Russ
|
| 606.157 | admire radicals? | YODA::BARANSKI | Im here for an argument, not Abuse! | Thu Jan 28 1988 16:59 | 27 |
| RE: .141 Ann
"It was Nietzsche who wrote, "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in
vain.""
That is uncalled for!
RE: .151
"Why are you holding up *all* of the women in womannotes for chastising because
they have not described the worst women they know?"
Yet many of them have described the worst men that they know. Double standard?
"Manipulative people can be disasterous to those around them. However, I have
never used sex to manipulate anyone, and I will not be made to feel guilty
because some people do this bad thing."
Rah! Rah! Rah! You tell him! ... I feel the same way...
RE: .155 Holly
Hmmm... That's how a lot of Fundamentalist Christians make me feel, too...
Holly as useless & frivolous??? That's not like her!
Jim.
|
| 606.158 | nit | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Thu Jan 28 1988 21:34 | 11 |
| <--(.157 resp. 141)
I don't know about uncalled for, but it was at least slightly
inaccurate; if Nietzsche (b. 1844) said that, he was quoting Friedrich
Schiller (d. 1805).
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens"
The Maid of Orleans, III, 6
=maggie
|
| 606.159 | beyond good and evil | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Jan 29 1988 11:25 | 17 |
| re .141 Oh, I see your point now. As Nietzsche said, "Once the
decision has been made, close your ear even to the best
counterargument: sign of a strong character. Thus an occ-
asional will to stupidity."
So do Carry On! :-) :-)
"To our strongest drive, the tyrant in us, not only our
reason bows but also our conscience."
"One *has* to repay good and ill--but why precisely to the
person who has done us good or ill?"
"Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good
and evil."
|
| 606.160 | things are getting better | OPHION::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Fri Jan 29 1988 22:05 | 14 |
| Re: .158
Welcome back Bonnie. I had missed the "Bonnie" confusions...
I don't know if Nietzsche ever quoted Schiller, but he did say
something that I find particularly apt right now:
"Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves?"
Nietzsche in "Jenseits von Gut and Bose"
See you in the "good books" note.
-- Charles
|
| 606.161 | just giving you some data, Ann (like flowers) | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Sat Jan 30 1988 22:30 | 21 |
| re .141:
> Was it Einstein or Newton who said that, if he saw farther than
> those who had come before him, it was because he himself stood on
> the shoulders of giants?
Newton
> I know Einstein was influenced by Michaelson and Morley, to give but
> one source.
Actually, Einstein was unaware of the failure of Michealson and
Morley's famous experiment when he developed the theory of relativity.
(from _The_Mechanical_Universe_II_)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 606.162 | Similar topic, different conference | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Sat Feb 13 1988 22:51 | 7 |
| Russ has entered a note deriving from this topic in soapbox,
note 45.86. I would encourage people who wish to continue
to discuss the sugject with him to read what he has written
in that conference, and possibly continue to discuss with him
in that conference.
Either add entry: bethe::soapbox_1988 or press the 7 key on
your key pad to add soapbox.
|
| 606.163 | The Eagle has Landed | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 25 1988 13:01 | 10 |
| As of this writing, authors like Collette Dowling ( Cinderella
Complex, 1981), Wilhelm Reich (whom Millett, Brownmiller, and
Vilar liked), and Vilar (Manipulated Man) have an edge over the
Major feminist writers. Namely de Beauvoir, Lessing, Friedan,
Greer, Steinem, Brownmiller, Smeal, Millett, and Eisler.
Perhaps they should have called it: NOW - 'the best thing next
to you'
Russ
|
| 606.164 | What are you trying to sell us now, Russ? | NEXUS::CONLON | | Thu Feb 25 1988 13:18 | 5 |
| RE: .163
They have an "edge" in what way and by whose standards?
|
| 606.165 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Thu Feb 25 1988 13:22 | 9 |
| Russ, I don't understand what you mean by 'have an edge'.
Do you mean that you find their writing more meaningful? I usually
think of the phrase 'have an edge' in the context of a measurable
competition such as "Team A has a clear edge over Team B". That
statement would be backed up in terms of the public records of the
players.
Please clarify.
|
| 606.166 | boulders and fine granular particles... | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Thu Feb 25 1988 15:14 | 5 |
| People that stress personal responsibility find more credibility
with me than the blame the 'system' people. Just my personal opinion,
no big deal.
Russ
|
| 606.167 | | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Thu Feb 25 1988 18:12 | 1 |
| I thought this discussion had been moved.
|
| 606.169 | believe it or not! | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Fri Feb 26 1988 17:52 | 3 |
| The WHALE swallowed Jonah but he still lived!
:-) Russ
|
| 606.170 | "Inherit the Wind" | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Feb 26 1988 19:59 | 2 |
| "Heh, hemm. Well, actually, it says `a great fish'."
-- Spencer Tracy
|
| 606.171 | | NEXUS::MORGAN | Heaven - a perfectly useless state. | Fri Feb 26 1988 21:02 | 3 |
| Reply to .169, Russ,
Didn't you know that was a myth? B^)
|
| 606.172 | a moral concern regarding premises, foundations, and actions | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Sun Feb 28 1988 07:35 | 58 |
| re .169 Is this? :
SCUM Manifesto (revisited)
"Is not a sober, reasonably argued programme for political
change. It's a racy, hot-tempered outburst of rage against men....
It marked a radical departure in feminist thought: it contains many
valuable insights which were to be developed and elaborated on when
the second wave of feminism truly took off."
-- Jayne Egerton, 1984
'Trouble and Strife' chap.
"For 'thrill-seeking females' only."
SECOND WAVE:
The name often given to the 1960's revitalization of the feminist
movement in Europe and the Americas. In fact there have been many
waves of the movement through the centuries.
On 8/26/70, a group of women calling themselves the Emma Goldman
Brigade marched down 5th Ave in NYC with many other feminists chanting:
"Emma said it in 1910/ Now we're going to say it again."
-- Christie V. McDonald,
'Diacritics', 1982.
Emma Goldman:
Turn of the century feminist-anarchist who made many crowd-
rousing speeches. One of her admirers was Leon Czolgosz. He was
taken by her rallies.
Leon Czolgosz may have lived with Emma Goldman for a time,
according to my Oxford friend, but I've not confirmed that. At
any rate Czolgosz assassinated President McKinley in 1901.
Emma Goldman was arrested shortly thereafter for conspiracy.
She was later released.
Questions: what's the full story with Emma Goldman - pro and con?
2. Might Charlotte Perkins Gilman have been a better
feminist to "chant" about in that 1970 march?
IE a better role model.
3. Exactly what parts of the SCUM Manifesto were those
"valuable insights ... developed and elaborated on"?
IE Authors, books, and possible movement ideological
foundations/agenda?
4. List the top NOW leaders/influential authors of
the movement from 1966 - 1988.
5. NOW's Charter and Major agendas the last 20 yrs.
thank you,
Russell Pollitz
|
| 606.173 | only women and men | XCELR8::POLLITZ | Mostly gylanic | Mon Jun 20 1988 03:16 | 4 |
| re .0 No, we all misfire sometimes - but no enemies.
Russ P.
|