Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;   s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;   h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;   b=hblExUrjkxapv3FWJoUizAlHN8iOHSpVEvJEecu10XPFBxdPmauLCpE0tfnZBK9kvNhRWp4Mu69Xfrlgl/P1c4VW7+43oZlG3LbcSDOali/ojPP+oSpeGJAUgccyqP1drybZ7Ft8vcfcrYS+FikzGTpn9kz+1WTJH6JmsW4Bzt8=  ;
Message-ID: <20051109050530.71983.qmail &AElig web81912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0800 (PST)
To: improvetheworld-noarchive &AElig umich.edu
From: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>
Subject: moving on
Status: O

     I warned Daniel that asking people to slap a
label on themselves was premature in this stage of the
debate.  I suspected not everyone would be
sufficiently immersed in feminist literature to choose
intelligently and meaningfully between the preexisting
subcategories.  I expected some polarizing and
posturing but I did not anticipate such an
embarrassing cacophony of responses.  For some reason
many of you feared the possibility that your carefully
manicured identities might be marred by association
with some silly tenant from the most extreme version
of feminism out there--when in fact no one here, not
even the self-proclaimed radical feminists, ever
actually supported this idea.  The idea I'm referring
to is the complete abolition of gender aesthetics or
the categorical denial of any sort of "intrinsic"
differences in the sexes. 
     We've already discussed the underappreciated
plasticity of both sexes in filling traditional gender
roles and the fact that gender stereotypes are
injurious to individuals' freedom--both female AND
male individuals.  You didn't even need to be
following the debate from the beginning to glean some
of this.  Just look at past subject titles. 
"Feminism" was placed right alongside "Masculinism"
and both were followed by the even more inclusive
term, "Anti-sterotypism".  I already provided a
plausible mechanism for social change which would
maximize freedom while circumventing worries of
current differences in the sexes.  (And if it does
not, someone do me the favor of telling me why not). 
This is where we STARTED and where it seems we have
laboriously returned.  And maybe if everyone had spent
less energy valiantly slashing at this "straw
feminist" we could have actually gotten somewhere more
practical.   
     Let me also remind those marching after Prince
James the Reasonable (other than the fact that he did
not establish any new common ground) that it takes
sound information to reason effectively (not to
mention EFFORT).  Those who consider misogyny and
gender discrimination in general as occupying some
insignificant, dark corner of the world are either
woefully ignorant, seriously misinformed, or both. 
Augie already provided some inklings and evidence is
heavy on her side.  Oppression of women is objective
reality by any reasonable definition of "objective"
and "reality."  To steal from Richard Dawkins, my
advice to those still in doubt is simply, "go away and
read a book."  I now know better than to politely
spoon-feed you all articles you declare you won't read
or interviews you won't listen to.
    From listening to this debate I'm reminded of a
study on racism.  For obvious reasons I won't bother
to dig up the reference.  The study involved two
intelligent men who went to the same high school and
the same college.  They scored roughly equivalent
grades, spoke the same vernacular, wore similarly
styled clothes etc.  Their most notable outward
difference was that one was Caucasian and the other
African-American.  Both men were privileged and
educated.  When interviewed before the study was
conducted neither could recall ever personally
experiencing racial discrimination.  They sent both
men in person to apply/interview for jobs and try to
secure an apartment.  The African-American went first.
 There were many instances in which he was told the
position was filled or that the apartment had just
been snatched up.  Then ten minutes later the
Caucasian man would go up to the same person that just
rejected the African-American and be enthusiastically
offered the apartment or job.  Importantly, at the
time the African-American did not suspect he was a
victim of racial discrimination.  He only realized
this after he saw the video of the interactions
between the other subject in the study and the
interviewer or landlord.  My point should be obvious:
just because you can't see it, don't mean it ain't
there.     
     Similarly, just because you're a woman doesn't
mean you don't discriminate against other women based
on sex.  Studies show (the ones in the interviews I
already sent) that both men and women are more
critical and less forgiving regarding other women’s
performance in the workplace.  Often a woman will say
something insightful in a meeting and later that idea
will be credit to a man instead.  Without realizing it
some female teachers punish female students who speak
with a high degree of confidence while at the same
time rewarding the same behavior in male students. 
Awareness of both overt and convert discrimination and
misogyny is important if things are going to change.  
 
     So, anyway I don't care if you call yourself a
stark-raving-mad-uber-feminist or a
misogynist-sympathizer.  Let's at least agree the
problem exists and get on to some practical matters. 
    I’ll propose some starters.  Since gender
discrimination is extremely difficult to destroy its
roots (though we should solider on there as well), I
think it makes perfect sense to legislate greater
diversity as a short-term fix.  Advocates of equality
can also point out to wayward companies and
institutions that their efficiency and bottom line are
positively affected by greater gender diversity (and
on average it is).  We should make it easier for women
to access resources that will enable them to
independently raise their children.  A first step
could be raising the minimum wage and encouraging
quality daycare centers at work.  It is also important
that everyone, especially those who can't afford a
fancy lawyer, have easy access to the legal system so
they can prosecute and punish employers who sexually
harass them or discriminate against them based on
gender.  We should find whoever is paying women less
and make them suffer.  Legally.  We should do whatever
we can to stop the oppression of women
abroad--supporting international human rights
organizations etc.  We should stop talking as if we
*know* what is inherently or intrinsically masculine
or feminine; as if it mattered; as if the debate is
even intelligible.  This language promotes harmful
gender stereotypes.  Psychological diseases such as
anorexia should be handled openly and aggressively
treated just like any other medical disease--without
stigma or shame.  Everyone in the developed world
should become vegan!  Ok, that last thing isn't really
as pertinent.  Foreshadowing anyone?  Hehehehe.  
You get the idea.  Let the games begin.  
Again, thank you for your endurance.  I’m having a
good time, I hope you are too.
-Erica