NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17220

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan
From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:49:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News id)
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Graydon <[e-mail]> writes:

>>There's a certain element of the male experience of feminist philosphy
>>that goes 'this is going to tell me I'm deficent in painful detail - ack!';
>>I, for one, am very resitant to being told I'm any more deficent than
>>the next person over.

So why not formulate the information in such a way as to obtain
maximum impact, i.e. SPEAK THE LANGUAGE THEY UNDERSTAND.  You don't
have to, of course - you (and the "you" isn't necessarily "YOU",
Muffy :-) can choose to speak your own language.  But if the idea
is maximize change ....


>This came up in a conversation I had with a woman the other night.  It
>seemed to both of us that men take statements about "men" a lot more
>personally than women take statements about "women."  That is (grossly
>generalizing here), if you say "all men are scum," a man is likely to
>respond "why are you saying I'm scum."  If you say "women can't do
>math," a woman is likely to say "what a ridiculous stereotype."  Given
>that this is the case (and it could certainly be argued that it is
>not...*smile*), it seems to me that what might be going on is that men
>have a stronger identification with "being male," because that is
>something to be proud of in our society.  More than that, some men base
>their entire self-worth on "being a man."

This is interesting.  Dr. Warren Farrell (although a man,
a certified, genuine, blessed by NOW feminist with impecable
credentials :-)  says that males-in-the-standard-mold view themselves
in terms of their careers or jobs first and foremost, and women,
by and large, by their social standing/friendships.
It explains a lot ....

>  In this case, an attack on
>"men" (being the societal standard for being male) *is* more of a
>personal attack.  It would be pretty silly for women to base their
>self-image on "being female," since society's view of women is rather
>negative.  Of course, there *are* female supremacists who do this, but
>there are relatively few of them.

I can't agree, Muffy, because by and large women hold MUCH more
power than men - its just a VERY different KIND of power, and has
characteristics that may be unpalatable to some.  Men who are stuck in
traditional roles have NO POWER WHATSOEVER - read Farrell's book,
"Why Men Are The Way They Are" and you'll see why this is so.
Here's a clue:  it depends upon how you define "power."
Warren defines it in fundamental terms:  power over time, leisure,
health, sex, etc.  I'll fetch the book from my bookcase (it's next
to my son's Curious George books, Tim :-)


>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>[e-mail]            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


--
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. [e-mail] | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com![e-mail] | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea