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