| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 334.1 | well, ok, so it wasn't short. | MCIS2::POLLITZ | gender issues | Sat Dec 10 1988 01:07 | 73 |
| Well, home life didn't make the top 5 (it never does) as a "starting
point" (of course considering how much it's continually being
're-defined' how could such a slippery animal be) so I'll try to
be brief.
Jobs: The last 30 years a number of factors have brought women
into the work force. Despite various statistical shifts
here and there, the sexes still are motivated to generally
be drawn toward jobs that have long been associated with
gender. That women today make about 2/3 of what men make
has a lot to do with women tending to be drawn toward jobs
that do not pay so much. Whether women can be motivated
to try for the more lucrative paying careers is something
that has to come from within; along with perhaps a greater
"educational/advertising/counseling [etc]" push.
Advocates of such a push believe such measures/achievements
to be in the best interests of Women and Society.
Schools: Advocates of non-sexist education (or unisexism if you
will) have made considerable 'advances' in the education
of our children and college students.
Book companies like MacMillan have extensive guidelines
regarding the depictions of the sexes in their lower education
school textbooks. The sexes are seen as frequently as
the other in any or all imaginable activities. Girls and
boys do the same jobs, play the same sports, and are as
aggressive/passive as the other. Motherhood is not taught
as something desirable for women and the words "Mother"
and "Housewife" are not used. The haircut styles of the
young depicted children is frequently changed and I must
admit - I am *very impressed* that traditional family life
has progressed in these texts of now being (but) yet another
*alternative lifestyle*.
Oh, also, teachers are frequently instructed to break up
the single sex groupings that all children naturally form.
Which the teachers today gladly do.
Attitudes: I guess if I was in an interview and said a word about
Women and motherhood ("I wish more women raised children
in the home") that that would be the end of the interview.
Politics: I can't comment on appointments without specific numbers
but again I will say that if more women strive to achieve
seats in the various houses, then more of those seats
will be held by women.
Reproductive
Freedoms: Always a controversial topic where life concerns are
paramount, I think technological advances and reason-
ably liberal attitudes have prevailed to make birth
control available, safer, and acceptable.
Abortion will always be a difficult subject; particularly
since the value of life is so deeply ingrained within
us ... and we don't like losing a potential human being
(particularly for [percieved] non-life threatening
reasons).
The matter of abortion should be a private matter between
a woman and her doctor.
That abortions used to occur decades ago without fan-fare
has a lot to do with the lack of the matter reaching
such a national political consciousness as now exists.
Which vectors of power fueled the controversy as now
exists on the national stage merits its own topic.
Russ P.
|
| 334.2 | addressing only 1 part of question | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | strugglin' for the legal tender . . . | Mon Dec 12 1988 13:01 | 47 |
|
I agree that blatant sexual discrimination is no longer acceptable
in alot of work places.(Digital being far more sensitized to this issue
than other companies I have experienced.) It is still very difficult,
in my opinion, to address "subtle" sexism. I think the "good ole
boy" network is still very ingrained in business, due more to
individual manager hang-ups than systematic problems. My perception
is that for women to be treated equally in the business enviornment,
most of the current generation of upper and middle management must
pass on, thereby removing the "programming" of an era that de-valued
women's contributions. I *hope* I see this in my lifetime!
I have been working since 1974, so maybe those women who have worked
more years exposed to the BLATANT discrimination can appreciate the
positive changes more than I could. I DO know that I feel drained
by the constant re-educating, struggling twice as hard to PROVE equal
worth, ect. (i.e. fighting the "good" fight ;-}).
> (In a
> discussion of interviewing techniques a manager said "If someone
> makes a sexist or racist remark terminate the interview and
> cancel all later interviews. We won't hire someone like that.") We
My guess is that this conversation took place within Digital. I feel
fortunate to have been given the opprotunity to continue my career at a
company that, based on my experience, is far ahead of most when
dealing with the issues surrounding sexual discrimination (I *know*,
even here at DEC there are improvements to be made!)
> We
> have a note on "Sexism is Alive ..." When sexism was ubiquitous
> such a note would have been ridiculous. It's now notable when we
> run into sexism.
I personally have never contributed to this note, but that doesn't
mean that I do not frequently experience some form of sexual
discrimination.
I am confident that we are making progress concerning sexism, it just
seems to be a very _long_painful_process.
robin
|
| 334.3 | | NOVA::M_DAVIS | Beyond the ridiculous to the sublime... | Thu Dec 22 1988 12:31 | 28 |
| To me, the attached is progress... I suppose it's only partial
progress, however, since I find it remarkable.
Marge
+---------------+
| d i g i t a l | I n t e r o f f i c e M e m o r a n d u m
+---------------+
TO: DSG Staff DATE: 22-DEC-1988
FROM: Peter F. Conklin
DEPT: Desktop Systems
EXT.: 235-8364
LOC. DSG1-2/E6
SUBJ: John Shirk
I'm pleased to welcome John Shirk to Digital as my secretary. John
has been with us as a TAG for the past four months. He was
instrumental in our recent move. John will also be supporting Dave
Cotton in his planning capacity, and Steve Mikulski and the Fonts
Program.
John has retired after a 20 year career in the Special Forces. He
enjoys bowling, golf, and skiing.
Please welcome John to the TAS organization.
|
| 334.4 | Betcha the engineers won't give *him* any guff! | RAINBO::TARBET | | Thu Dec 22 1988 12:38 | 3 |
| Remarkable indeed, Marge!
(The poor guy'll now be one of the best-known people at DEC ;')
|
| 334.5 | | RUTLND::SAISI | | Thu Dec 22 1988 12:42 | 3 |
| DEC must be behind other companies on this. I know of several
male secretaries at other companies.
Linda
|
| 334.7 | Progress, yes; remarkable, no. | BOLT::MINOW | Repent! Godot is coming soon! Repent! | Thu Dec 22 1988 13:54 | 6 |
| I had a male secretary in Dec Stockholm in 1976, in Corporate R&D in 1978-9,
and in the DecTalk group in 1986-ish.
Maybe I was just lucky.
M.
|
| 334.8 | | LEZAH::TUCKER | | Thu Dec 22 1988 14:35 | 4 |
| The secretary of our group 12 years ago in Syracuse, NY was
male... the first secretary I ever had exposure to in DEC.
B.
|
| 334.9 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Robert Holt UCS4,415-691-4750 | Fri Dec 23 1988 02:07 | 3 |
|
If this dude wants to stop by the soapbox, he'll get
plenty. Especially if he's another reactionary...
|
| 334.10 | The Empire Strikes Back | MUNICH::WEYRICH | hijack the starship | Fri Dec 23 1988 09:07 | 38 |
| .3 ff: are female secretaries announced in the same manner????
.2: Robin, I just read an article that some women start a "good ole
girl network" over here in Germany; I don't like it at all; they do
just the same things as the good ole boys (i.e. ridiculous rituals, the
same nepotism). And they are mostly daughters or grand-daughters of
good ole boys...It's fine that women start to do something TOGETHER,
but I really wish they would do something DIFFERENT instead of just
imitating the "boys" follies.
It's true things have improved over the last ten years, but there's
terrible reactions to that; in Italy, group raping has become a kind of
fashion. I read about a woman who was raped by 15 young men (most of
them still in their teens). The trial was comparatively fair, and the
boys were punished severely - but the woman had to move somewhere else:
she was the witch that had "ruined the lives of 15 _decent_ man".
Another woman was raped in the middle of Rome by three men; when the
police arrived, one of the guys was still on top of her, the others
were holding her arms and legs and had their trousers still down; when
they were arrested, they laughed and could hardly believe that someone
could be arrested for such a trivia. They were punished hardly in the
first instance. In the second, it looked very different: their lawyer
told about the woman's three children of three different fathers, about
her former alcohol and drug addiction, and said something like: "look
at her - she's not the kind of beauty that might make three men lose
their minds" - they made it look like SHE had offered herself to the
men for money. The men got an acquittal. The judge said they were "not
a danger to the public".
The woman's lawyer (also a woman) said: what it really means is that
there's two classes of women in Italy; you can rape women of the one
class and go unpunished, but you are a danger to the public when you
steal the mink of a woman belonging to the other class.
The woman died three days after the acquittals - and probably not only
from her pneumonia.
pony
+
|
| 334.11 | In defense of the 'Box | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Fri Dec 23 1988 14:04 | 10 |
| re: .9 (Robert)
Now Robert, you know the 'Box is just a cheery place where
happy people get to discuss uplifting topics for the sake of
mutual enlightenment. Why, I have a hard time imagining a more
congenial and inviting environment than SOAPBOX (where seldom
is heard a discouraging word), where everyone is welcome and
all opinions are given the attention they deserve (heh heh heh).
- Greg
|
| 334.12 | | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | where the road and the sky collide | Fri Dec 23 1988 17:28 | 21 |
| re .10 hi pony,
I probably could have been more specific about the 'good ole boy network'
that I was refering to :-)
> .2: Robin, I just read an article that some women start a "good ole
> girl network" over here in Germany; I don't like it at all; they do
> just the same things as the good ole boys (i.e. ridiculous rituals, the
> same nepotism). And they are mostly daughters or grand-daughters of
> good ole boys...
I agree that what you are describing is as undersirable as the g.o.b.n.
I only meant that *I* found this type of mentality difficult to advance
against within the work enviornment I experienced. It was like trying to
take on an unidentifiable roadblock.
robin
|
| 334.13 | | NOVA::M_DAVIS | Eat dessert first; life is uncertain. | Sun Dec 25 1988 22:59 | 8 |
| re .10:
>Are female secretaries announced in the same way?
Yes, it occurs to me that the manager who made this announcement
had previously made similar announcement of a female administrator.
Marge
|
| 334.14 | Changing Times | WMOIS::B_REINKE | Mirabile dictu | Wed Jan 04 1989 01:53 | 33 |
| This was in Alan Lupo's column in the Boston Globe last
week.
"The revolutionary change in how men and women view each other
has been for the best. We are a much healthier society for it. But
for a lot of us who were just a bit too old for the '60s generation,
the change is not without some confusion.
"My friend Vinnie Basile, a state probation official, is a fireplug
of a guy with a coarse Eastie voice, a firm handshake, a heart of
gold, and a soul of pragmatic compassion.
"One day, acting on the innocence of reflexes, he held a dorr open
for a woman.
" 'Get out!' she yelled at him. 'Get out! I can open my own doors.'
"Two weeks later, he was on the Green Line when an older woman boarded
the car. Old training is hard to repress. Vinnie stood up to offer
his seat, realizing only then that he might have insulted yet another
woman.
"She stared at him, and he, at her. 'Whatever you do, lady,' he
pleaded, 'please don't yell at me. If you don't want the seat I'll
sit down. But don't yell.'
"She smiled. And she took the seat. And she explained that the only
reason that she had stared at him was because she was 'in shock'.
" ' It's been so long since anyone offered me a seat', she told
him.
"Go figure."
|
| 334.16 | | CUPMK::SLOANE | A kinder, more gentle computer ... | Wed Jan 11 1989 12:49 | 9 |
| Yes, but Sports Illustrated still has their annual swimsuit issue. It
has men and women, but is targeted toward men. (If you *really* want to
see bare skin, male or female, there are better places than SI to
look.)
Would people buy it if they had, say, an annual football uniform
issue?
Bruce
|
| 334.18 | | RAINBO::TARBET | | Wed Jan 11 1989 13:18 | 6 |
| You're right, Marge, my younger daughter, who enjoyed working as a
cocktail waitress for several years, has commented on how glad she was
that progress had been made, tho she regretted the lower tips that also
(apparently) resulted. She's a complex person.
=maggie
|
| 334.20 | Times Change | RUTLND::KUPTON | Thinner in '89 | Wed Jan 11 1989 16:20 | 31 |
| A recognizable resteraunt in Portland, Maine ran an ad in the
Portland papers around 1979-1980 as folows:
Wanted: Waitresses. Attractive Females, Must be size 9 or under.
A number of women turned up for the openings, knowing that they
would indeed make excellent money in both the resteraunt and bar.
Some that showed up could not meet the advertised criteria. They
were not attractive, size 9 or under, or either. One woman sued
the resteraunt claiming discrimination because she weighed in at
200+ but had years of experience etc. etc.
The owner claimed that he bought 48 uniforms and had given little
thought to what the size indicated (of course) and that his ad was
geared to have attractive waitresses in an attractive setting. He
won the case but lost the war. Because of the location, his waitresses
were freezing to death, had problems walking around on the spike
heels, and were constantly being fondled. Problems arose from customers
(men) thinking that the women were their personal property etc.The
whole mess was pretty nasty.
Today it is a landmark resteraunt. Still has the same owner
but the waitresses wear formal tux-like shirts with bow ties, and
tuxedo slacks with dress shoes (low heels). They also are all sizes,
shapes, etc. They're all good service people, which is most important.
When the dress code changed, the service was better, the waitresses
much more friendly (less guarded), I felt more comfortable eating
there and so did my wife.
I guess what I'm saying is that as a result of less sexism,
the business became better, not worse. BTW, the owner is a much
better person for what he learned.....he's a millionaire today .
Ken
|
| 334.21 | Synchronicity of discussions | LEZAH::BOBBITT | persistence of vision | Wed Jan 11 1989 16:55 | 57 |
| Synchronycity can be really interesting. I think the quantity of
discussion that goes on about sexism can well be a form of progress,
as more people actually THINK about what is going on, rather than
just cruising through with a "business-as-usual-why-change-things"
attitude. To whit, this discussion from a totally unrelated general
talk-about-anything mailing list I'm on with members from around
the country. If it matters to anyone, the conversation is between
two men.
-Jody
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to "X"'s reply to my reply to his comments on sexism:
And I'll try to clarify my objections.
>(a) Because I'm a man, I have no way of measuring the "constant
>background of subtle put-downs" that is claimed to be the larger
>part of the sexism women experience.
Yes, you do: why don't you listen to how men talk to/about women? Sexism
isn't something you need female ears to hear (sort of like dog whistles).
Pay attention and draw your own conclusions.
> Of course, I can measure what
>women *say* about it, but How do I calibrate the measuring
>instrument? Were I in their place, would I consider the same
>supposedly sexist remarks obnoxious? Would I consider them
>frequent enough to be a problem? Would I think that it got in
>the way of my attaining whatever goals I thought were important?
>God only knows.
I.e., you think things would be clarified if you knew how such remarks sound
to a woman. So why don't you listen to women, then? That's exactly what
they're trying to tell you.
>(b) Rather, the few reports I've seen are from people with a strong
>interest in these issues. This interest is usually correlated
>strongly with certain political positions, and I needn't remind you
>that politically oriented people tend to find data that supports
>their prejudices.
I'm not denying that there are some women who scream sexism if you so much as
hold a door for them. I'm not surprised that you feel their opinions can be
discounted -- if anything, I agree with you. But can't you check with some of
the otherwise sane and reasonable women you know? You must know *some*. As
you say, the source is important. (Or are you one of those people who consider
all reported information unreliable on principle? If so, I guess I don't have
much to say to you.)
I'm certainly not a knee-jerk liberal myself -- I'm liberal on some issues,
conservative (relatively speaking -- remember I lived in Amherst six years)
on others. Personally, I would greatly prefer never to have to discuss/bother
about/scream about sexism -- God knows I have better things to do with my
time and energy. But once in a while I get hit with something that makes me
*really indignant*. And then I have to speak up. Sexism exists, and needs to
be (a) pointed out, and (b) discouraged. It's as damaging as any other
injustice.
|
| 334.22 | | CIVIC::JOHNSTON | OK, _why_ is it illegal? | Wed Jan 11 1989 17:17 | 35 |
| Copy: The perfect way to let her know how much you appreciate her...
the gift: a framed picture/poster with the following words and
quite a few cute icons:
Four-Letter Words For
S U P E R M O M !!
Taxi
Wash
Mend
Cook
[a few others]
Love
I find this distasteful for the following reasons [among others]:
- "Love" is listed last!!
- "Read" doesn't appear [a terrific four-letter parental activity]
- except for Love, all attributes are menial
- a LOT of fathers do a LOT of these things
- "Supermom" & "Superwoman" are, to me, demeaning concepts
for women -- measuring them on unattainable goals as it
were ....
grumble, grumble...
Ann
|
| 334.24 | | CADSE::SHANNON | look behind you | Wed Jan 11 1989 20:22 | 6 |
| If youa re bothered by scandily cland women waitresses please never
go to an atlantic city casino.
Or never take a cruise and go into the casino, the have women dealers
at the card tables and men at the craps table
|
| 334.25 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | Words like winter snowflakes | Thu Jan 12 1989 11:46 | 4 |
| re: .24
Are the men at the craps table scantily clad too?
Mez
|
| 334.26 | | HAMSTR::IRLBACHER | | Sun Jan 15 1989 15:41 | 38 |
| This is a thought about some reverse sexism I have experienced
over a period of years.
I have always felt free to go into any restaurant I pleased (even
if I did feel strange sometimes) alone to eat. A short number
of years ago, I often found myself virtually ignored and hastily
served by waitresses (at the few where men were waiting on tables
I received equal or quicker service than other "coupled" tables--
yes, I watched like a hawk!). I also found myself seated, too
often unless I spoke up and demanded a better table, at the least
comfortable or "nice" section.
Today, I rarely experience that type of reverse sexism from women
waiters. They are quicker to recognize that women alone aren't
to be ignored---the feminist movement has certainly raised the
awareness in service personnel that *a woman alone* does *not*
mean she is a second class citizen because she eats alone. (did
they think the tips would be unworthy of properly done service?)
After my husband's death I purchased a new car. When I began to
talk with the salesperson about front wheel drive, stick vs.
automatic, etc. he suggested that perhaps I would like to bring
in my husband to look the car over. I said I would love to,
but his ashes were down the side of a mountain, and what would
he suggest I do? Needless to say, I sailed out of that place!
I purchased a car from a salesperson who told me later he knew
he had a customer who was savvy when I chose to take the car
down a frost-heaved and curvy road instead of the smooth turnpike.
I certainly was treated as if I knew what I wanted and wasn't
given a "be a good little woman and let me talk with a man who
*knows* what is what." I have bought my second car from same
dealer with same no-nonsense no-sexist attitudes.
Marilyn
|
| 334.27 | Synagogues | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Mon Apr 17 1989 16:24 | 9 |
| In the last ten or so years Conservative Judaism has changed from
keeping women in a seperate section of the synagogue from which
they could watch but not participate to the point where most of
the synagogues are egalitarian, with no distinctions between men
and women. Since there was a specific requirement that women be
seperate, I find this change to be remarkably swift despite
starting much later than one would have wished.
--David
|