X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jA9Lx1S8024973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:59:01 -0500 Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.144]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jA9LwxKu002157; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:59:00 -0500 Received: FROM boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 4372711F.237F3.10136 ; 9 Nov 2005 16:58:55 -0500 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jA9LwsS8024958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:58:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id jA9LwrT4024955 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:58:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:58:53 -0500 (EST) To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: the "no means maybe" joke Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 320 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