Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!orca!ariels
From: ariels@orca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Feminism and a double standard(?)
Message-ID: <642@orca.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Feb-84 19:13:35 EST
Article-I.D.: orca.642
Posted: Sun Feb 26 19:13:35 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Feb-84 08:52:55 EST
References: <641@orca.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 98

This article contains quotes of quotes (><), quotes (>) and my
comments on the quotes.

Chris Minson writes:

> Barbara Theus writes:

>
>Yes, there a lot of people who do not take women engineers seriously
>and it also seems to be the case that these are the types who are most
>easily manipulated.  However, just because they are vulnerable to this type 
>of manipulation, does that mean you should take advantage of it?  Does that
>not undermine your own credibility as well?  These people do not
>take women professionals seriously simply because they do not view women
>as professionals.  Thus, when you do not deal with them in a strictly
>professional manner, your own actions implicitly reinforce their
>opinion of women professionals in general.

Yes, but Barbara has a job to do.  We all have jobs to do.  Why
is it her responsibility to educate these men when they already
haven't paid attention to her when she's tried to be professional?
If she has to interact with them, it's easiest and least frustrating
to act as they expect her to act, which means she gets what she
needs out of them to perform her job in a timely manner.  Obviously,
she does not prefer to act that way, but if the only way that works,
she has to use it.

>
>It is this kind of attitude that is one of the biggest barriers to acceptance
>of women in business.  

I heartily disagree that the additude is the problem. It is not the
responsiblity of feminism to educate those who do not wish to be
educated.  I can't think of any feminist (female) I know who does
not prefer to interact with peers as equals, in a professional
manner.  This being the preferred method, it is tried first.  If the
man to whom they are relating does not accept this, then the woman
must try other methods, because often we must tailor our approach to
the person we are approaching, in order to GET OUR OWN JOB DONE. (read
we as all people who deal with other people).  

When you use only one approach in dealing with people, then you can
require that others do the same.  I have noticed that all those who
have only one tactic for anything usually end up angry, frustrated,
and unable to get much done. 

>You are merely confirming the opinion of the
>chauvinistic minority and thus increasing its power.

To whom is Barbara confirming this opinion? To those who already
hold it? Well, OK, but they'll get this opinion confirmed no matter
what.  I'm sure they've seen plenty of instances of professionalism
in women, but since they don't like it, and don't think that is the
way women should act, they just ignore women who use it.  They are
denying and will probably continue to deny the possibility that
women (and probably any other people of whom they have behavioural
expectations) can be valid human beings, and still not act the way
they (the "chauvanists") expect.

Is she confirming it to you? or to other men who are feminist or
feminist sympathisers?   Hopefully, these men realize that there are
people in the world who do not recognise behaviour that does not go
along with their expectations.  Hopefully, these men also realise
that women in professional positions have to deal with these people
on a daily basis (as do blacks, jews, orientals, or any other group
about whom assumptions have been made by the "traditional WASP
Males" who have "the power"), and to get their jobs done may have to
interact using methods that are not necessarily favored, or
"politically correct".

Barbara's behaviour as she describes it is not hypocritical.  At the
worst, its a borderline cop-out.  It's really just an admission to
one's self that the world isn't the way one would like it, but one
is living in it, so one has to make do.  But I can think of no person who
has never copped-out in this manner in order to save their own
sanity and get their job done.  And I can think of no reason that
a person should be considered "hypocritical", or "giving women
(blacks, jews, orientals...) a bad name" for using this method to
get by.

This subject shows signs of overlapping into net.philosophy territory,
since what it seems to come down to is "where does your
responsibility to yourself and your own task leave off, and your
responsibility to the movement begin?"
 
Ariel Shattan
..!tektronix!orca!ariels