Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    
    .0 = WOW!
    
    .2 = WOW!
    
    Thanks for that touch or realness and humanness that has been so
    lacking in this file recently!!  Y'all brought tears to my eyes!

	 Why is appreciating another's body considered sexist?


	 kath

    RE .13 It isn't 'appreciating another's body' that is
    troublesome but the idea of 'people-as-bodies-only',
    driveing the T&A(&B) industry, that a lot of people
    dislike.
    
    
    

    Hi all. If I see a "nice" looking woman on the street or in an
    environment where we will not meet, I cannot help but think of her as
    just a body. If I meet a nice looking woman in a context of business or
    work or a social setting, or even just saying excuse either her to me
    or me to her when cutting across paths in stores then the thinking goes
    beyond just a body to being a real person. I think I have to hear a
    voice to get beyond the body stage. No, it's never as just a piece of
    meat though. I do wonder what a woman's personality will be like. The
    body is the first thing I notice. Actually, it's the face I notice 1st
    and then I look all the way down to the feet.

Why is thinking of people as pieces of meat necessarily sexist?  If I think
of both sexes as pieces of meat, am I still sexist?

Anyway, I am not convinced that admiring people's bodies is "thinking
of them as pieces of meat".

To the people who "admitted" to liking to look at (pictures of) the
opposite sex - do you really believe it is sexist, or are do you think 
it's okay, but are admitting to something you know *other* people 
consider sexist?

I find this strange - if I had traits and behaviors I considered sexist 
[which, of course, I do and I've given examples in other notes] I would try
to *change* them.  If I thought a calender I had was sexist, and my
enjoyment of the calendar demonstrated my own sexism, then I would 1) take
down the calendar, 2) try to figure out why I enjoyed something sexist
and 3) get rid of those sexist attributes in myself that made me enjoy it.

I am trying to say this without sounding like I am jumping on anyone or
nitpicking - but if you *really* think having a magazine or calendar is
sexist - why do you have it?  (I, personally, don't think it is necessarily
sexist, so I have no problems with you having it.)  If you really think
ogling MOTAS is sexist, are you trying to quit the habit?

D!

    I love looking at good looking men, preferably in person, but pictures,
    too.  I don't think it's sexist so I didn't add it to my list.
    
    Lorna
    

Rachael:

>    - I won't stop for a man on the side of the road, but I would stop to
>    help a lone woman.

While I am a bit paranoid and wouldn't stop for *anyone*, this seems like
sanity, not sexism.

D! 

    No big deal but I found Lorna's comment about women that love their
    children MORe than men, about as distasteful as all hell!
    
    Furthermore, Mel (yes, THE WIFE) found it even moreso than myself.
    
    
    On the topic as a whole....
    
    Now, if it is so easy to admit that you all have a tad sexism within
    (Yes even I do), then arent we all pretty much "equal"?
    
    In retrospect towards the gender wars that is....

    	RE: .12  AMARTIN
    
    	> No big deal but I found Lorna's comment about women that love their
    	> children MORe than men, about as distasteful as all hell!
    
    	It was presented as an example of a "sexist" belief - if you disagree
    	with it on that basis, then you should have been happy to see it come
    	up identified as such.
    
    	> Now, if it is so easy to admit that you all have a tad sexism within
    	> (Yes even I do), then arent we all pretty much "equal"?
    
    	We live in a sexist society, so it's easy to be influenced by sexist
    	ideas - easy for you, too, Al - but let's not forget that women are
    	the TARGETS of sexism the vast, vast majority of the time (whether
    	the sexism comes from men or women.)
    
    	If we'd all been subject to equal amounts of the effects of sexism,
    	women wouldn't still be engaged in a struggle for equal rights today.

    Do me a favour, ok?  write to someone that gives a dung about what you
    have to say.  I surely don't.
    
    To clarify a bit Lorna, if I came across incorrectly, I am sorry.
    
    What I ment was that that thought left a bad tast in my mouth.  I
    wouldnt expect someone like you, let alone a womannoter, to have such a
    sexit concept.  that is all.
    

    
    	Do us *all* a favor, Al.
    
    	When you see a topic where people are admitting having some thoughts
    	that could be classified as "sexist" (eg, "offensive") - you might
    	consider that it isn't necessary or appropriate to take offense at
    	the ideas (expressed in this context.)
    
    	It might help if you remember about what the topic was set up to
    	accomplish.
    

    Re .14, Al, my interpretation of people admitting sexist thoughts
    is that these are feelings that, intellectually, we know are not
    really true, but that on an instinctive level, we partly believe,
    maybe because of the way we were brought up or because of some of our 
    experiences over the past years.  If I didn't know it was a sexist feeling,
    a gut feeling, that I intellectually know isn't true in all cases,
    or maybe even any cases, I wouldn't be able to recognize it as sexist.
    It's more of an opinion, that when I was much younger, I may have
    accepted as fact, without really questioning it, but now realize
    is not true.  I might catch myself starting to think that way now, but
    would immediately stop and recognize my thought as being sexist.
    
    And, I assume that's true for others who admitted their sexist
    thoughts, as well.  I especially hope it's true for those professional
    women who admitted to not thinking very well of housewives or other
    women in traditional careers.  In my opinion, women who look down
    on women in traditional roles are missing the point of the feminist
    movement, which I think of as meaning that women now have *more*
    choices in life - engineer, doctor, housewife, school teacher,
    secretary, truck driver -
    and not just a different set of limited choices - engineer, doctor,
    truck driver, etc.
    
    
    Lorna
    
     

>    women in traditional careers.  In my opinion, women who look down
>    on women in traditional roles are missing the point of the feminist
>    movement, which I think of as meaning that women now have *more*
>    choices in life - engineer, doctor, housewife, school teacher,
>    secretary, truck driver -
>    and not just a different set of limited choices - engineer, doctor,
>    truck driver, etc.
 
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.  I have said time and time again that I
think women should be allowed *any* choice they are capable of (and be 
respected for their dedication, skill, etc, regardless of the nature of
their choice.)

Unfortunately, it is hard to get rid of those gut level reactions we have
ingrained in us - the split second impressions that come to mind when we
hear "nurse", "secretary" or "engineer".  I can even point to where I got
those gut-level feelings from (my mother was always angry at society for
forcing her into "women's work" and actively discouraged me from pursuing
a similar career path) - but even knowing that doesn't make decades of
training vanish.

It's a hard thing - any suggestions on overcoming this sort of deeply 
ingrain sexism and/or misogyny are welcome...

D!

    Re 1074.26, it really hurts me to know that you feel that way about
    secretaries.   I am curious if you have ever liked, or been friends
    with a woman who was not a college graduate or a professional. 
    
    
    I have long been afraid that professional women looked down on
    secretaries and this topic seems to be confirming it.  It's sad
    to think that the so called woman's movement is so permeated with
    classism, and elitism.
    
    It seems that many women who have professional careers really have
    no use for women who are in more traditional roles.  That's a
    dissapointment.
    
    It's strange that people who have very high IQ's sometimes seem
    to have no use for people with average IQ's, but then shower sympathy
    on mentally retarded people.  It's seems odd to me that since I
    wasn't born with the intelligence to be a scientist, I should be
    looked down on, even though I support myself.  But, if I had been
    born mentally retarded most people with high IQ's would have great
    sympathy for me!  I guess the thing to watch out for is an average
    IQ, especially for a woman!
    
    Mark, I'm not sure that this topic was a good idea.  (What if some
    of us wind up hating each other?  What if some of us feel so hurt
    by what other people admit to, that we leave?)
    
    Lorna
     

    Lorna, I think the fact that people are noticing they may have this
    attitude, acknowledging it, and realizing it may be sexist is the first
    step (if not the main step) towards eradicating that attitude.
    
    I have been a secretary, and felt in control and pleased with
    accomplishing the tasks I was given quickly, efficiently, independently
    - and then felt crushed when I realized what small amount of
    credibility my title got me.  
    
    I see the feminist movement as an encouragement of every woman
    following her heart - WHEREVER it leads - to the kitchen, to the moon,
    to the steel mills, to the steno pool, to the switchboard, to the
    computer lab, to wherever THEY feel most comfortable, most productive,
    most happy, most like they are fulfilling their potential.
    
    YES there is something in me that looks at secretaries who seem UNHAPPY
    with their jobs, wondering why they don't do something else that
    fulfills them better.  And PART of me wonders why some people who are
    very high caliber would choose to become secretaries when they will, by
    this culture, often be devalued and underutilized for that choice (it
    may look like a cop-out to me, but on second thought - maybe they're
    just trying to move that mountain and "take on the system" and change
    that attitude....)
    
    -Jody
    
    

    
    	RE: .18  Lorna
    
    	> Re 1074.26, it really hurts me to know that you feel that way about
    	> secretaries.   I am curious if you have ever liked, or been friends
    	> with a woman who was not a college graduate or a professional. 
    
    	When I see you make degrading comments about other women's looks or
    	weight, I ask myself if you have any idea how much you might possibly
    	be hurting some other women in this conference (or if you even care!)
    
    	Perhaps a good goal for our whole society is to stop judging women
    	so harshly (regardless of the criteria being used.)
    

    re .19
    
    Jody, you brought up a point that I've often wondered about, and I'm
    still trying to figure out.
    
    Why is it that many women work their way up from the secretarial pool
    to management, and men seem to begin at entry level management?
    
    I've worked my way up from temp. to admin. sec. to project specialist,
    and many times I saw a gaping void between men's and women's entry
    positions.  Is it a matter of "playing the system", or does one find a
    manager who is not afraid of promoting a good support person and
    encouraging that person?
    
    I have finally reached the point where I feel that all my efforts have
    paid off, but it hasn't been easy.
    
    Why are the starting points, in general, different for men and women? 
    (I'm talking about management careers, not field-specific positions
    such as law, medicine, engineering, etc.)  Does this tie back into
    sexist attitudes of the type of jobs that men and women are expected to
    take, and the school of thought that the man is the primary bread
    winner?  If so, this overlooks ability and the reality that women's
    roles today aren't what they used to be (i.e., regarding single
    mothers, men who choose to stay home to take care of the family, etc.).
    
    Judi
    
    
    
    
    

    re .20, Suzanne, I deleted the note that you refer to.  I had written
    it in anger hoping to hurt some other woman as much as I have been
    hurt by the negative comments about secretaries and housewives.
     I then, changed my mind, and deleted it, because, on second thought
    I realized I didn't want to hurt anyone else!  (However, it is a
    sexist notion to value women by their appearance, and one that although
    I recognize, I still sometimes must fight against, just as others
    of you have to fight against devaluing traditional women's jobs.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .19, Jody, the only problem I have with your reply is that you
    said you wonder why "high caliber" women would want to be secretaries.
     What if a woman isn't "high caliber"?  What if she really doesn't
    have a high enough IQ in a certain area to earn big money in the
    high tech industry?  But, she is a good secretary and does secretarial
    tasks well.  Why should she be looked down on?  Why can't she be
    appreciated for doing a job well that needs to be done?  We need
    people to answer phones and type and set up meetings just as we
    need people to design computers.  Afterall, I didn't think we were
    supposed to judge or like people only according to how much money
    they make....
    
    Lorna
    

    
>     What if a woman isn't "high caliber"?  What if she really doesn't
>    have a high enough IQ in a certain area to earn big money in the
>    high tech industry?  But, she is a good secretary and does secretarial
>    tasks well.  
    
    Then I think if she's happy and fulfilled, that's great.  She doesn't
    need to achieve any more than she wants in my book.
    
    Why should she be looked down on?  Why can't she be
>    appreciated for doing a job well that needs to be done?  We need
>    people to answer phones and type and set up meetings just as we
>    need people to design computers.  
    
    I think that people today are judged by pretty harsh standards - in
    fact I think we all judge ourselves by pretty harsh standards.  I think
    some people look at secretaries and say "wow, she (*or he*) has no
    motivation.  If they did they'd be managers by now".  The world seems
    to have forgotten that once upon a time all areas of expertise were
    valued - there were barrel-makers and coopers and typesetters and
    meadmakers and cobblers and tinsmiths and fletchers and each one was
    respected for their craft.  Being a secretary takes MUCH MORE work than
    most people are aware of, and since secretaries have become "invisible"
    since the job passed from men to women several decades ago, many people
    are unaware of not only how many skills secretaries need, but on how
    difficult it is to dovetail the demands of several people and meet the
    needs of each on a timely basis - because each person sees only their
    needs met - not the needs of all the other people in the office.
    
    I also think it's automatically discounted (with food-servers and
    house-cleaners and manicurists and childcare people and telephone
    operators and whatever other classifications are primarily filled by
    women) simply because it's "women's work" and therefore can't possibly
    be "serious or difficult".  It's the culture talking.  Not the
    individual. 
    
    Next time you hear that disdainful tone from somebody who hasn't even
    thought about their opinion of secretaries - where it came from - how
    it was formed - why they never questioned it -, suggest they
    spend a day in your shoes, or describe a typical day.  Maybe that'll
    quiet 'em down.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I'm trying to remember where we've discussed this before - if
    anyone has any idea, maybe we can move this discussion to there...
    

    re .23
    
    If a person is satisfied with their job, then does it make a difference
    what that job is?
    
    If a person is dissatisfied with their job and they choose to remain in
    that job, growing even more dissatisfied, why do they not change the
    situation?  I have seen far too many people *at all levels* grouse
    about their jobs, choosing to stay and grouse and grumble, rather than
    doing something positive about it.  That change takes effort, and can
    be difficult for people who have responsibilities such as family and
    financial constraints, but it is not impossible.
    
    Most of our waking hours are spent working.  If one chooses to be
    miserable at work, why not make the effort and DO something about it.
    
    Yes, the job market is tight right now and the cost of living is high,
    but is it worth it to stay in a job that one doesn't like?  If leaving
    one's current job isn't feasible, wouldn't it be worth talking with
    one's manager about making changes that would make the job more
    interesting?  
    
    I found that the book "Wishcraft" (Barbara Sher) helped give me the
    courage to make the changes that I needed to make in order to move
    ahead.
    
    
    IMO, it's not the caliber of the person in the job; it's the caliber of
    their work that comes through.
    
    Judi
    

    	RE: .22 Lorna
    
    	The note you deleted did remind me of this attitude (although I
    	was primarily thinking of the many other times I've seen you
    	make comments like these in the course of serious discussions
    	elsewhere in Womannotes.)
    
    	> (However, it is a sexist notion to value women by their appearance, 
    	> and one that although I recognize, I still sometimes must fight 
    	> against, just as others of you have to fight against devaluing 
    	> traditional women's jobs.)
    
    	It's *great* to see this recognition (about the sexism involved in
    	valuing women by their appearance *and* by their choices of careers.)
    
    	It seems apparent that many/most of us have to fight against the
    	temptations involved with *both* of these examples of sexism towards
    	women.  
    
    	Neither example is unique to traditional women *nor* to women in 
    	so-called non-traditional careers (since neither group has a monopoly 
    	of women who would be considered the most attractive in our culture.)
    
    	The stereotypes involved with women's appearance is another aspect
    	of sexism towards women, of course, which makes *three* different
    	ways (mentioned in this note) that we all need to fight against.

RE:  .25 Judging by acheievements

I have to agree with this one.  This is old hat for the men's culture
where you are judged almost solely by your job in many people's eyes.
The older I get, the more I solely respect people by their heart and
their wisdom.  In the long run, that's seems to be what really counts
and what people really respect.

Jody, please don't admit that you don't remember where a discussion
was.  You are ruining my image of you!  ;-)

john

    I think Lorna has brought up an important point. Women are not allowed
    to be average and thought of as successful. We have to be better than
    similar men to be thought of as equal.

    If I am content to be a mid-level technical jill_of_all_trades does it
    matter that I don't aspire to be an engineer or a manger? Does it
    matter that a good secretarty doesn't want to be a poor manager? Lord
    knows I've seen enough poor managers, those who kept trying to move
    upward becasue being competent at a lower level wasn't as good as being
    incompetent at a higher level. liesl

On grousing:

I loved the comback of a candidate for governor about his complaints about the
Democratic party (though I hate political tit-for-tats): It's my party, and
I'll cry if I want to.

I only complain about jobs I like enough to work hard at and change. When I'm
mentally checked out, I don't bother (unless asked directly).
	Mez

    
    	RE: 1074.31  Lisa
    
    	> The bigness of the hair is inversely proportional to the bigness 
    	> of the brain.
    
    	> 8*P
    
    	That reminds me of a line from "Working Girl," where Melanie Griffith
    	says (as her friend restyles her hair):
    
    		"If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to have
    		serious hair."
    

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1074.34                 My sexist attributes...                    34 of 34
SA1794::CHARBONND "if you just open _all_ the doors"  5 lines   9-APR-1990 15:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re 1074.33 Lorna, the sexy tatoos on women are in places another 
    (straight) woman probably won't see them :-)
    
    As for tatooed men, I'll introduce you to some guys I know, and
    you'll *never* like tatoos again >:-)

    .32>     or a flaming *&%$*! feminist (female)
    
    okay, so several people who know me, can stop laughing now :-)...
    
    Bruce, rest assured, there *are* some in this conference who are female
    and not  flaming *&%$*! feminist 's.....
    
    
    Gale
    

    Lorna,  
    
    I really see the attitude toward secretaries as having primarily
    a sexist origin, rather than a class one.  "Just a secretary" was a
    function of being "just a woman" like being "just a housewife."  (Of
    course, it's impossible to separate out sexism and classism
    completely.)  It's hard to root that out of our thinking.
    
    I certainly admire the capabilities, stamina, and negotiation skills
    that a competent secretary must use.  I hate to see managers fail to
    use secretaries to their fullest (so that the secretary has nothing to
    do).  And I hate to see secretaries underpaid.  I know there are
    managers whose secretaries must make the difference between the manager
    succeeding or falling flat on his (usually "his") a--, ah, er face! 
    And when I know that she is underpaid, unappreciated (by the Corp. and
    society), and virtually invisible, I wonder how she can keep doing it! 
    
    Hang in there, and keep speaking up!
    Nancy
    
     

Lorna>    Tatoos look sexy on men, cheap on women.  


	 Hummm.....Hummmm..........You have to be able to see them on
	 a woman to think they're cheap......many women's tatts aren't
	 visible to that naked eye......unless her body is naked as
	 well.

	 kath

    Lorna, I, too, felt saddened by the comments about secretaries.  But I
    also felt very saddened by the comment about never working for a woman
    (that was yours, wasn't it?).  As has been pointed out, though,
    recognizing these sexist attitudes is a first step.
    
    I moved on from the secretarial field because I didn't want a career as
    a secretary.  In my opinion, a good secretary is as much a professional
    as an engineer!  I didn't feel that I was naturally good at secretarial
    work.  It was much more of a struggle (especially since I am *not* a
    morning person).
    
    By far the best boss I've had at Digital is the one I have now (no
    offense to any previous supervisors/managers who may read this file!
    ;-).  She's a woman!  She's the most fair, most honest, and most
    guiding manager I've had here.
    
    And when I was still a secretary, the women I worked for (although none
    were my official supervisors) were far more supportive of my personal
    goals, for the most part.
    
    And FWIW, Digital as a corporation appreciates secretaries much more
    than many companies I've observed/worked for (of course that might not
    make you feel good!).
    
    There are male secretaries here at Digital, too.  They tend to be
    treated much more harshly than the women, I think, especially if they
    don't move out of the position quickly.
    
    Enough of sexism for tonight!
    other companies

    re: 1083.18
    
    Lorna,
    
    	I'm really sorry that my comments hurt you.  I didn't intend it to
    be that way.  The topic is about "confessing" sexist thoughts, ones
    which are normally suppressed.  That is why I wrote it.  I'm certainly
    not saying it is true but it certainly is an attitude *I* have that I
    have to struggle to overcome.  I KNOW most secreataries work hard and
    are good at their jobs as do a lot of other people in other area. 
    Admitting what I feel in a place such as this is one way of overcoming
    it however.
    Hardly any of my friends are college graduates or "professionals".  I
    do not have a degree (though am working on it for MY satisfaction) but
    do consider myself a professional at what I do.  I DO CONSIDER OTHERS
    WHO TAKE PRIDE AND CARE IN THEIR WORK TO BE PROFESSIONALS.  I also hate
    the attitude that if you are a house(person) or in a so-called "lower"
    job then you do not have as much value.  I have the same problems
    every day in my job.  I don't look down on people for doing what they
    want to do.  I was merely admitting the gut reaction I have about
    certain things.  I hope you could tell from my note I was ashamed of
    some of my attitudes, but writing them down has made me recognise them
    more clearly.  I think everyone has the tendency to look down on
    others, it is things such as note 1074 which help people like me look
    more truthfully at themselves.
    Again, sorry, it was not meant to hurt ANYONE.
    
    		Holly

    
    I think I'm in the same cost center as Susan in .38, and I have to
    say that I've never worked for a better bunch than those I am working
    for now.  I don't have an org chart handy but I'm pretty sure that the
    management is at least 85% female, with the male management staff
    members being at the lower level(s), i.e., supervisor.  From what I've
    seen, though, this isn't uncommon in documentation.  And, I just wanted
    to add that we've had some pretty great secretaries, to, both permanent
    and temp!
    
    I don't look down on secretaries; my mother was a pink-collar worker. 
    I admit to having a few preconceived notions about hairdressers.  I
    also have the hangup with women who wear lots of makeup.  (I realised
    this fairly recently when I had the occasion to become acquainted with
    a woman who was both a hairdresser and a bleached blonde who could
    (almost) compete with Tammy Faye Baker in the makeup department.  I was
    totally wrong about her, and when I realised that there was "something
    to be wrong about", in my mind, I was shocked at myself.)  I think
    Catherine Iannuzzo had something wise to say about all of this in one
    of her notes... don't remember which one.  
    
    CQ

    re: .30
    
    Aha!  Found it....the initial topic here where secretaries and respect
    were discussed.  Perhaps the discussion here of that topic could move
    over to:
    
    topic 307 - Classism
    
    -Jody
    

    the other day I went to pay my trash pickup company at their office.
    while there the woman at the front desk was fielding one call after
    another, took the payment from this really impatient guy, then took my
    payment while talking to me, forwarding calls, answering other lines
    paging people.  I was in awe.  when she could talk to me, I told her
    so. I also told her I would tell her boss what a great job she was
    doing if she wanted me to.  she said she would call when it was time
    for her pa. :-)
    
    I find that if someone is happy in their job, and they do a good job,
    thats all thats important.  whether they are in that job for a few
    months or a few years.
    
    vivian

    re .44, I completely agree with you, but I wish it wasn't so.  I
    think relationships (and life) would work out better if either men
    were more like women, or women were more like men, in this respect.
    
    Lorna
    

I have actually (yes!) heard men use this to *justify* cheating, even.   As in,
"My wife would kill me, I know, but it's okay - it's just sex - it's not like
I love her [the other woman] or anything."  When prompted on how he would feel
if his wife did it "I'd kill her.  Women don't like sex, so she must be doing
it for love."

Yuck.

On the other hand, I have also heard a female friend of mine say exactly
the same thing (that she was cheating, but it was okay, because she loved her
SO and didn't have any feelings for the othe man.)

D!

    re: .41 (and another, I think)
    
    You folks obviously don't live in NH (I *know* you don't, Kath)! 
    There were a number of women at the Earth Day celebration in Nashua
    with very visible tattoos - and even though it was a warm day for
    April, no one was nude!  One woman had a continuous tattoo across her
    back, shoulders and chest.  She was wearing tank top, so all could see
    it.
    
    Personally, I think they're cheap on anyone - male or female.  It's an
    even bigger turn-off to me than smoking!
    
    BTW, there were *tons* of men with tattoos at the celebration, too,
    including the only person to be arrested.
    
    Susan
    
    PS:  RE: .40, yes, Christine, we *are* in the same cost center!  And
    this has been my best job at Digital!  It's more than just be suited to
    the work (although that helps ;-).