NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6578

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 7.6 KB | 185 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:47:14 GMT
Lines: 173

[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>>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 many things that people cannot prevent. To give the most
extreme example possible, the Nazi Holocaust.

Or to give another extreme example, there is some evidence the AIDS
epidemic could have been prevented if the government had acted faster.
I do not wish to argue this evidence; all I am saying is that if this
*is* true, then the AIDS epidemic is to a certain extent the fault of
these government officials. It is most definitely not the fault of
individuals who have suffered an untimely death, because of activities
there was no reason to know *at the time* were a health risk. (Of
course, I am not talking about individuals who conduct risky activities
currently.)

And let me also remind you, that it is not only physical abuse that is
scarring; emotional abuse is too. And emotional abuse is not equally
prevalent in all cultures. I therefore suspect that it too, can be to a
certain extent minimized.

I certainly do not blame myself, for the abuse I suffered as a young
person due to being learning disabled. I do blame some individuals, and
I do to a certain extent blame the cultural climate of the time.

>>>    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.

No, I am talking about teachers of undergraduates.

>>>>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.

Let me put it this way -- I think there will be much more cultural
change in the next 30 years than there's been in the past 30 years. And
I think you don't really have a feeling, for how great the changes in
the past 30 years have been!

>>>    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.

I suspect sexual harassment is more common against young women --
although it is certainly applied to both genders.

By the way, let me suggest a small tape recorder as a cure!

>>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.

Read the Ms. article! You will be amazed how *un*suave these teachers
are. (This article is sad, but very very funny!)

And I do note that the very same professors who are overly willing to
favor a cute female are -- almost always -- the very ones who are the
most likely to treat an un-cute female as an un-person. Believe me!

>>>    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)

I was talking specifically about *looks* discrimination.

>>>    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:

I've never taken a WMST class, and never intend to. I avoid "voodoo"
studies in general, whether taught by left or right wingers.

>  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)..

Please give some more specific examples (for the benefit of us
technocrats).

Let me note as a side issue, that the ethical quality of an academic
discipline seems to be higher, the less "warm and human" the discipline
is -- and the more based on fact.

>>>    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?

I think *sexism* in specific is not much more prevalent either in
academia or the business world. I think academia tends to run to
extremes a little more.

Lenore Levine