Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Changing Roles Message-ID: <274@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:29:29 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.274 Posted: Wed Jul 3 12:29:29 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 05:41:13 EDT References: <251@timeinc.UUCP> <448@tymix.UUCP> <257@timeinc.UUCP> <5467@tektronix.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Distribution: net Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 134 Summary: In article <5467@tektronix.UUCP> moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: >..... So, the only way you can win is to *be you*. Then, if >a woman reacts negatively to who you are and/or how you are, you >can choose to discuss the situation openly with her (or not), and >choose to change (or not, depending on how it fits for you). > 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! > >..... To say >that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not >to say that they are superior, just different. If it sometimes >seems there is a higher than average emphasis placed on that trait >in this forum, perhaps it is to compensate for the lower value >placed on it out there in the real world. > The problem here, of course, is that first you must accept the claim that there is any value to your emotions! I'm not saying that there isn't: I value mine more and more as I get used to them. But who says that there is any use for them outside of an emotional context. In the feminist mailing list there is a current discussion about crying in the workplace. Quite a few people equate a women's tears with a man pounding on the desk in anger and/or frustration. Nobody has said that any such display of emotionalism in the workplace is out of place. I happen to feel that there is great value to being able to control these self-same emotions. Does that mean that women don't measure up in my book? No --- 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! (Quoting me) >> Or the other portion that >>says that women do not have a need to be protected (as they >>can protect themselves), and then the women on the net tell me that *I* >>must educate my fellow *men* to the idea that (as example) rape is >>wrong. > >I don't see a contradiction here, Ross..... [lines about persons being walked home at night, and about being (sometimes) a bad judge of character] Eeekks! I guess I didn't make myself understood. I hate sloppy writing like that, but at least I get to practice :-). 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! 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? How can a person who is incapable of even understanding the issues of rape (how often have you read that in this news group?), understand them enough to convince anyone that it is, indeed, a horrible thing? If I'm not capable or desired AS A MEMBER OF A CLASS of doing one thing, then what gives you the right to assume that I'm capable of doing anything? Trying to have your cake and eat it, too? > >>It is wonderfull to discuss the idea of education in the future solving >>all the problems that we consider sex based. But I have to live today. So >>when I see a pretty women crossing the street, and I wouldn't mind >>getting to know her better (she "appeals to me"), I would >>love to say: "I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee", and expect her to >>think "What the hell", instead of me saying to myself "She might >>take that as a sexual come on. I wonder what I should say to her instead". > >The problem is with the expectation. Expect her to act genuinely, and >you have a lesser chance of being disappointed. Deal with others as >individuals, not as occupants of pigeon holes. Yes, it is a lot more >work, because you can't put yourself on automatic pilot. So, go ahead. >Invite the attractive woman out for a cup of coffee. And take what you >get at face value. If she declines, for whatever reason, know that it >has so much more to do with her than to do with you. 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 :-)!! 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? If you read my postings, I think you'll find that what riles me is when a woman, demanding her equality, starts to classify men as being "like this, or like that". > > >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." > >Moira Mallison 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?? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.