Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511091533000.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511091718460.16577 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511091533000.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:22:53 -0500 (EST)
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: the "no means maybe" joke
Status: O

I don't know, I'm starting to reconsider after viewing the "Do's and
Dont's of housewifely tips".  I think it sounds totally reasonable that my
wife would revere me and honor my right to rule her and our children, and
who would want a wife with preconceived ideas about what she wants out of
life?  I'm looking for malleability, not substance.

 - k

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> Dave, your defense of diplomacy in social situations is astute but misses
> the real point of the joke, and why Kevin and I and other self-proclaimed
> feminists object to it so strongly.
>   The joke contrasts women with (presumptively male) diplomats.  A diplomat
> always adds positive spin and pretends to agree to any proposal, whether
> they're actually agreeing or not.  A woman in her traditional role never
> explicitly acquiesces.  It should be obvious how dangerous that is --
> implicit apologetics for rape, in fact, like Kevin pointed out.
>   But even if you view it as purely a face-saving maneuver with no real
> ambiguity about consent [1], the underlying assumptions behind this
> gendered mode of interaction are highly troubling.  For example:
>   * it is inappropriate for females to pursue a romantic interest
>     (and the opposite for males)
>   * it is inappropriate for females to be sexually active
>     (and the opposite for males)
>   * it is expected that females suppress their goals, desires,
>     hopes, ambitions, and pursuits of happiness
>     (and the opposite for males)
>
> All of these undermine female equality!
>
> OOH, check out the last 2 DON'Ts in this list from a 1950s home economics
> textbook:
>    http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.htm#slave
>      (the list at the top is fabricated or exaggerated; the do's and dont's
>       list is real)
>
>
> PS: In unrelated news, I was delighted to learn that today Washington
> state voted overwhelmingly in favor of a smoke-free workplace law.  A
> stronger one than any other state in fact, as it prohibits smoking even
> outside of bars and restaurants (so no outdoor smoking sections either).
> Almost all of Canada is already smoke-free (with Ontario's law taking
> effect in May) and it's clear the US is rapidly following suit.
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/whiteboard/smoke/
>
>
> [1] Never having had sex without explicit bilateral yes's, I'm perhaps out
> of my depth here but it does seem like there would realistically be no
> such ambiguity regardless of the diplomatic conventions, but that's not
> the point.  None of us can relate to the mentality of a date-rapist.  If
> anyone can point to studies about a link between the "no means maybe"
> traditional gender role and rape, I'd be grateful.
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>
> "Oh, forget it:  I can't write about this anymore until I find a
> much more sarcastic typeface."  -- Bill Bickel
>