Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!seb From: seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: what makes you feel feminine/masculine? Message-ID: <1360@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 15:21:19 EST Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1360 Posted: Thu Oct 31 15:21:19 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 04:00:02 EST References: <248@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1944@reed.UUCP> <32@ubc-cs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 82 >> me > Marcel Simon >> .... The reality is that in business women and minorities have >> to follow the same rules that men follow. >> .... But again I have to ask "If you, as a man, find the rules >> unfair, and know that other men feel the same way, why don't you try to >> change the rules?" ... >> why after so many years of male dominination in business, are you complaining >> about something that men, as a group, could change if they wanted to? >> And don't ask me how! Groups of individuals have significant clout >> in our society. And considering the power, money and influence that men, >> as a group, have, it seems absurd to think that they can't change the >> rules under which they operate. It seems obvious to me that most men >> either like the current set of rules, are ambilivalent, or have given up >> trying. >First, a group's power is a in direct proportion to how unified the group >is in support of specific issues. Such a consensus does not exist in favor >of the changes you speak of. Therefore you just proved my statement that the majority of men support the current rules, are ambilvalent, or gave up trying to change them (presumably because there are so few who want to change the rules). This seems to show that the men who have posted to net.women complain- ing about society's oppressive rules are merely a small minority. I guess it is up to the women to change the rules then. >Second, recognition that something is not perfect does not imply that >a proposed alternative is better. For example, capitalism is deeply flawed, >founded as it is on greed canceling out greed. Considering the practice of >proposed alternatives, however, I'll stick to it. What is the proposed alternative to men not showing weakness and emotion? Showing some weakness and emotion. Social conditioning must be very strong to keep men's emotions bottled up and keep them from showing weakness. What is so hideous about this alternative? Just the fact that it isn't the norm yet? We are talking about a society that gives men more freedom to express themselves. We're not talking about making men into women. >Third, what is your alternative? Before you answer that question, ask >*yourself* if *you* would vote for a male presidential candidate who >wore earrings. Depends on his qualifications, now doesn't it? I don't judge a person's ability to do a job by what he/she wears. My alternative is to not judge other people according to superficial things like dress. >Finally, the limited sample we have (Imelda Marcos, Margaret Thatcher, >Michele Bennett Duvalier, Isabelita Peron, etc. among contemporaries; Catherine >the Great, Messalina, Marie-Antoinette, etc. among historical figures) proves >rather conclusively that women are as likely to be dictatorial, incompetent >fuck-ups as any male. So what exactly would be gained by men "becoming >more like women?" What is this preccupation with "men becoming more like women?" That's not what I said. I've said it twice. I would have thought you would have grasped what I meant by now. I said men should have the freedom to express their feminine sides, if they are so inclined. I'm talking about giving men more freedom. That's what they have to gain. >To say it yet another way, I don't consider it my problem if some guy >does not feel free to do feminine things. I will not prevent him from doing >them, but ultimately, *he* has to be comfortable enough with himself to >do whatever it is he wants to do, and be proud of doing it. Maybe I should ask you the same question you asked me - would you vote for a male presidential candidate if he wore earrings? If the thought of other men breaking out of the male stereotype doesn't bother you, then you are not standing in the way of these men. The problem is with people who think there is something seriously wrong with a man who cries (witness what happened to Muskie when he cried), a man who wants to become a nurse or a florist instead of a football star. The man taking the abuse may be proud of what he is doing, and may feel that he is doing the right thing. But, if he gets no support, his fight will be a very short one. Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb