home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
- From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
- Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec27.190424.18426@wam.umd.edu>
- Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
- Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
- References: <BzvzLz.FL9@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec27.034044.24042@wam.umd.edu> <BzxH5r.E4C@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:04:24 GMT
- Lines: 191
-
- In article <BzxH5r.E4C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
- >rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
- >> Some people just happen to have more sympathy, I am not
- >> one of them. I have made it my task to be honest with
- >> myself--if I do nothing else--and I have seen situations
- >> that I would like to pin on others ["you didn't push me
- >> hard enough!" "You didn't encourage me"] but refused to
- >> do so. It takes a little practice, but I've found it to
- >> be quite effective. I have yet to blame society for
- >> anything.
- >
- >But there is much that society *should* be blamed for.
-
-
- You'll have to be more specific. I don't agree.
-
- You can blame _people_, and to a limited extent you
- can blame groups, but you cannot blame society.
-
- (I come from the point of view that "if you could have
- prevented it, and chose not to do so, the responsibility
- is mostly your own" anyway..)
-
-
- >> there are a few here, too--but most of them are still
- >> (what I consider) a little too easy to influence.
- >
- >Not here -- believe me!
-
-
- Grad school, perhaps.
-
-
- >>>I know I was more on the wavelength of my spring 1992 class than I was
- >>>on that of the fall 1992 class. And my spring students *did* do better.
- >>>They were more willing to seek help.
- >
- >> True enough for math--but try to apply that to something
- >> like what I take, like languages. If students do not keep
- >> up and do not practice,they will require hours and hours
- >> of special help to catch up, if that's at all possible.
- >
- >If you think this is *not* true about mathematics, you are quite
- >mistaken.
-
-
- No, but you can make efforts to catch up in a math class,
- particularly if you're willing to sit down and do the problems
- andnot just read the book ("waste time"). You can check if you
- are correct or wrong--because these are absolutes (... most
- of the time).
-
- <Still, we're agreed on the basic point>
-
-
- >>>Entrenched? It's amazing how many institutions and values that seemed
- >>>entrenched, in 1992, will have disappeared by 2022.
- >
- >> Wishful thinking.
- >
- >If you remember this exchange in 2022, you're going to be very
- >embarassed.
-
-
- I see gradual change, but nothing radical. the basics--
- "good wholesome Xtian values" (..) will still be a strong
- force--if not stronger.
-
-
- >> I have seen very good arguments that
- >> show economics as a prime mover behind the civil rights
- >> movement and not civil disobedience and protest. These
- >> types of arguments are a lot more concrete than the nebulous
- >> arguments that are based on guilt, giving in and whatnot,
- >> and I have seen similar ones on advances in womens rights.
- >> The only real concrete achievement of the people who claim
- >> to be the workers of equality are the fanatical rape laws
- >> (mono-sex definitions of rape, reducing the defendants right
- >> to a fair trial..) and the abortion laws. While these may or
- >> not be noble things, it is very hard to show that these
- >> organizations achieved anything but a lot of empty litigation
- >> and handwaving. The real drive behind getting women into
- >> the workforce (which I consider the biggest single
- >> factor in social equality) was economics.
- >
- >Note I did *not* say *why* institutions change. This is the subject for
- >another discussion, and one that I am not particularly into
- >undertaking. I am just glad some of them have (e.g., the abortion
- >laws).
-
-
- Ah.
-
-
- >> In HS, I didn't see much of anything--most of my teachers
- >> were between 24 and 36, and many were still students. That
- >> was a special case--from what I've heard, normal HS is
- >> pretty much even bigotry on both sides of the table, with
- >> some male teachers going over the ropes in a sad attempt
- >> to impress the girls and build their egos (if not fill their
- >> beds).
- >
- >There was a well-written article in a recent Ms, by a high-school age
- >woman, describing teachers who flirted with her, much against her
- >wishes. In the article, she said that though some high-school women
- >welcomed such attentions, for the free ride it gave them, many others
- >regarded them as loathsome.
-
-
- JFYI, boys get the same deal, but few get a "free ride"
- --it's either all the way (respond or fail) or nothing at all.
-
- >And, by the way, I suspect that such teachers would discriminate even
- >more against young women who didn't meet their standards of
- >attractiveness, than males.
-
-
- I don't agree at all. In these situations, the teachers are
- trying to impress and cajole their target, not just pressure.
-
- You don't do this by making yourself look like a mean bastard.
-
-
- >> College is different. The teachers (outside ofthe voodoo
- >> departments) are generally there because they enjoy what they do and
- >> want to continue to learn and research and so on. They
- >> have preferences for individuals which do not seem based
- >> on gender at all. (Race, looks, etc., though...)
- >
- >Preferences based on race and looks are just as unconscionable as those
- >based on gender.
-
-
- Never said otherwise.
-
-
- >Also note that much more looks prejudice is directed at women; and that,
- >in general, women encounter much more inappropriate discrimination based
- >on looks then men. (Although the female T.A. drooling at the football
- >player is not an unknown spectacle -- and just as disgusting!)
-
-
- you'll have to back this assertion up--from my own observation
- it's pretty much even on both sides of the coin. Worse in
- certain classes (though, the classes I've taken with misandrists
- far outweigh the two I've taken with misogynists)
-
-
- >> In WMST, SOCY, AMST--I saw plenty of anti-male *sexism*--
- >> it can be labelled nothing else.
- >
- >This statement doesn't sound unreasonable. You may even convince many
- >feminists that it's true. If you want to present convincing evidence for
- >this statement, let me recommend the following strategies:
- >
- >1) Give as much specific detail, and as little opinion, as you can. Let
- >the facts speak for themselves.
- >
- >2) Give extreme and obvious examples.
-
-
- No need to. anyone who has taken a WMST class knows *exactly*
- what I am referring to: the entire class is conducted in an
- atmosphere hostile to men. The teachers routinely ignore the
- male students when they attempt to ask questions, or when they
- bother to reply, they give an answer like "You can't understand
- because you're part of the oppression". Further, they tend to
- grade unfairly (believe me, I saw some of the "A" papers)
- and will often refuse the male students the same courtesies
- they extend to their female students. (What, missed a quiz?
- Tough. So what if I let Janet retake it because she got a low
- grade and Jane because she missed the same day you did--I'm not
- *required* to do so)..
-
-
- >> I have never seen sexism on the job...
- >
- >I sure have. Though, I must admit, it varies tremendously from
- >institution to institution.
-
-
- Care to post a comparison inside and outside the academic world?
-
- >Lenore Levine
-
-
- --
- This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
- to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.
-
- Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
-