Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Tektronix Network News Daemon (B 2.10.2 based); site tektronix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!moiram
From: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison )
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Changing Roles
Message-ID: <5481@tektronix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 17:59:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: tektroni.5481
Posted: Mon Jul  8 17:59:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 00:28:42 EDT
References: <251@timeinc.UUCP> <448@tymix.UUCP> <257@timeinc.UUCP> <5467@tektronix.UUCP> <274@timeinc.UUCP>
Reply-To: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison )
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 114

>>> Ross	>> Moira (me)			> Ross

>>So, Ross, I leave you with this quote: 
>>"Don't take any of this personally.  I'm only reacting to you the way 
>>I'd react to ANYBODY who represents to me what you represent to me."  
>
>I don't know how to take this, Moira.  If I somehow represent the
>"class" of men, then all of your arguments above are utter hogwash,
>you sexist pig!
>
>So I have to ask you outright:  What do I represent to you??

What you represented to me in your previous posting was *a* man with
some sincere questions about the problems we *all* have about dealing
with changing roles.  I assure you there are few (if any) qualities 
that I would ascribe to the whole class of males.   What I responded
to was the Ross as I know you, from your previous postings here and
in net.singles.  I replied from a sincere *personal* perspective.  
It is clear from your response that it was not what *I represented 
to you*...  so we both get to practice :-)

>The point here is that the true me says to open a door for anybody
>who happens to be behind or aside me.  And the truth of the matter
>is that I'm getting damned tired of being the real me and getting
>those nasty looks from the feminists who feel that my opening a door
>for them somehow is paramount to me keeping them in their place.  I
>don't want to discuss their screwed up feelings about it --- the idea
>that someone can take an innocent gesture like opening a door, or letting
>someone into the taxi first as so damnable important is ridiculous.
>
>So, in todays society, I feel that there is a large portion that says
>that "be you....as long as *I* approve".  Hogwash! I'd prefer to be
>me as long as *I* approve --- somebody who takes an innocent and harmless
>gesture of societal politness so seriously probably isn't a fun person
>to be with, anyway!

You just answered your own question.  Don't take it *personally*.  If 
someone is insulted because you open the door for her, her anger
is *her* problem.  If you let her anger affect you, and how you behave,
it's *your* problem.  So while you're being you and opening doors, allow
her to be her and get insulted.  You have less control over others'
behavior than how you are affected by it.

> I take people on
>an individual basis, and not as a member of a class.  At least I
>try to. Too many of the people in this group see me as representing
>some class, instead of just being me.  I happen to resent that!

Funny thing, I responded to *you* personally.  Nowhere in the article
did I talk about how *men* are as a group; I did talk about women
generically, and all of society.  But your response has a flavor of
lumping me in with all of antagonistic feminists of net.women.  (Please
note that I use antagonistic as a qualifier, not a general descriptor).

>What I was trying to say is that there are women in this group who
>talk about being self-dependant, and about not needing any
>of the traditional male support stuff, who then come back, after
>insulting every male in this group (and perhaps the ones in their
>day-to-day life?), and think that now we should actually help them
>in obtaining something they desire!

Yes, I can see how this would rankle.

>This is not to downplay the issue of rape, BTW.  But after being told
>that I, as a member of a class, am not trustworthy to walk you home,
>what makes you think that I am capable  of educating my fellow "men"
>in issues regarding rape to your satisfaction?

Ross, I think you are missing the point.  I did not say that no man
is trustworthy of walking me home.  I said that I might not want to
make that decision based on a few minutes of conversation.  On
the other I hand, I *might*...and there are a few people who read 
this group who can testify that indeed, I *have*.  But I have to make
this decision based on my interactions with *you*, and if I'm less
likely to accept your invitation now than I was ten years ago, I'm
not going to apologize for it.  No, it is *not* fair to you or to me
that this situation exists in our society.  But until people are 
educated about rape, and it becomes less prevalent in our society,
we are *all* at the effect of the consequences, and that is why you
may want to get involved in educational issues.  In the same way,
I am at the effect of the danger to children in our society.  I
like to respond to friendly children, but I also want to know that
the parent is comfortable with it.  Is this fair?  Is it good? NO,
but it IS.  Whining about it reactively won't change a thing.  
Telling parents they should be more trustful of people they don't
know isn't wise.  The only solution is proactively working to 
change the situation.

>Expect her to act genuinely?  Without meaning to point fingers
>at anyone in particular, I would expect certain of the
>members of this newsgroup to take that as a rape threat and
>blow me away.  And that is only with half a :-)!!

If she takes a simple invitation to a cup of coffee as a rape 
threat, that is her problem.  If she blows you away, well, 
admittedly the both of you have a problem :-).  

Seriously, Ross, it is the most radical members of this newsgroup
who treat you as simply a member of a class.  While you may not
get an affirmative answer to such an invitation, I doubt that 
most readers would assume a real threat of rape in such a situation.
(So why not answer in the affirmative, I ask myself.  Hmmm. I don't
know.  I have to think on this one.)

>I have seen the people in this group (and we are far more open than
>society as a whole, right?) class persons according to whether they
>have a sex organ that goes in or out! And you are asking me *not* to
>classify people according to their sex organ?  

At the risk of overgeneralizing [:-)], I would venture to say that we are
all guilty of overgeneralization sometimes.  

Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram