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:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;   b=W4/rNgoCKkTiipn/lXRo3Rah+BXqVYysdCXKOxZRyXerkfn0g8T7L5O96XNwYJSbO28jrotZn4FNNPiTRNffpFEzGYg70RNiP/dQD2vWWBerQPOHVSZJnjZuh6mITqgcgURTvB5xsbKTqmdYxxZ+uiiiKP8ipvDWUgWEC50Hj58=  ;
Message-ID: <20051111183417.26857.qmail &AElig web81910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d3580670511091543v6baad309kd457a8463e919bbd &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:34:17 -0800 (PST)
To: improvetheworld-noarchive &AElig umich.edu
From: "Erica O'Connor" <luca2032 &AElig yahoo.com>
Subject: last attempt to move on
Status: O

     I dislike being misrepresented.  I never said
that a goal should be to destroy all gender aesthetics
and differences--quite the opposite.  Either you
(Lisa) weren't reading anything I wrote too carefully
or I was unclear.  In fact, the main point of my last
response was that no one in this particular circle
expressed such a goal, "ornamented language"
notwithstanding.  Notice also that I personally did
not use any radical rhetoric, nor did I expect my
policy ideas or behavioral change recommendations to
be perceived as radical.  Not here.  I only thought
some were wasting time attacking the ideology of a
particular type of radical feminist when there were
none in our immediate midst.  Sure, such people are
out there somewhere and it is unfortunate that others
use their existence as excuse to discard the
reasonable tenets of the feminism movement.
     It is extremely frustrating that in response to
my pragmatic suggestions I received another two essays
on the woes of radicalism.  So you'll have to excuse
me if I've just repeated myself.  
     I'm more interested in what exactly can be done
to promote women's rights and empowerment to remedy
existing inequality.  Aside from what I've already
mentioned I've been thinking about globalization and
free trade.  Apparently women in developing countries
generally benefit from free trade; as a result more
women are able to stay in school etc.  Though, I have
to do more research on the causal factors presumed to
be at play here.  Furthermore, there may be competing
interests that would make one hesitate in throwing
one's support completely behind a particular measure
even if it did promote women's rights.  In this case,
for example, some (though not myself) might be more
concerned about protecting American industry and
American jobs than empowering women in other
countries.  
     Anyway, these are the types of things I'd like to
discuss so I can be a more effective, informed citizen
and a better voter.  If anyone would care to join me
that would be wonderful.  
-Erica

--- Lisa Hsu <lisashoe &AElig gmail.com> wrote:

> this will be short and sweet.
> 
> first of all, i say amen to prince james,
> particularly on his most recent
> tome. as someone who's sympathetic to racial
> equality, i have to say i love
> MLK and the panthers freak me out. additionally, as
> someone sympathetic to
> gender equality (and let no one say i'm not doing my
> part by eking my way
> through this truly male dominated field), the
> language of radical feminists
> also freaks me out. i want a means to an end, and i
> don't think that
> language will get us to the end i desire, because
> you can't even get ME on
> the bandwagon.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> as for this - as a pragmatist, this is just totally
> impossible. maybe i'm
> not fully understanding what you mean erica....but i
> will always have boobs,
> a uterus, and more estrogen than testosterone. the
> fact remains that in my
> relationship with my fiance, it is I who will get
> pregnant, have the baby,
> and breast feed it. until we become a bunch of
> ambisexual or asexual beings,
> there is this problem of physical intrinsic
> differences that cannot be
> escaped, and certain things will just have to go
> with that, and while some
> may view that as fortunate, and others unfortunate,
> it is what it is. i
> think equality WITH our differences in mind makes
> more sense. i used to be
> all gung-ho about playing in co-rec soccer leagues.
> that is, until i
> consistently got beat up. there was the time i
> couldn't close my mouth for 4
> days (yes, it was just hanging slightly open)
> because a guy probably around
> my age but with quads the size of my waist kicked a
> ball that hit me in the
> face. i still play, but i'm not so bold as i used to
> be. that's just an
> example, but in sports, in other things...certains
> will just be. and i'm ok
> with that as long as i can still play as much soccer
> as i want. or work
> wherever i want. or drink as much beer as i want.
> and watch as much sports
> as i do. or have sex with whomever i want, and NOT
> with whomever i don't
> want. i don't think any of these things require a
> rejection of the fact that
> there are differences between sexes.
> 
> Let's at least agree the
> > problem exists and get on to some practical
> matters.
> 
> 
> amen again! i don't have to believe in the above to
> throw my support behind
> these measures. in my mind, they're totally
> decoupled. but i'd bet you'd
> scare away a crapload of people who would support
> everything below by the
> language above.
> 
> ok, so maybe this isn't as short as i planned, but
> i'm done now.
> 
> lisa
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>