------=_Part_42797_28628868.1131390330694
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
i completely agree. i am where i am because i feel like i am pretty
confident and, when i'm not feeling it, fake it really well :).
the question is where the line is between confidence and arrogance (which i
suppose is somewhat related to kevin's point about confidence without
competence).
the world would be better if some women were a little more confident (but
not cocky) and some men were a little less arrogant, without being weenies
;).
in an unrelated note, i would also like to proclaim that victoria fossum
possesses the quadfecta (what's the analogous word for trifecta with four,
if any?) of brilliance, bodacious beauty, sweetness of personality, and
athleticism all in one person. and i hope nothing bad ever happens to you
again. don't forget, you're a quadfecta! screw the dumbasses.
lisa
On 11/7/05, Kevin Lochner wrote:
>
> (note to Eric: some friends of mine have a mailing list for general debate
> here at michigan, and we're currently discussing issues of feminism. I
> thought you would like to be CC'd because I'm using you as an example -
> BCC to avoid spam after the fact).
>
> I have a couple of anecdotes related to Lisa's ideas about what we're
> calling "masculinity" and the corporate world.
>
> My brother interviewed for an engineering job a few years years back, and
> wanting to pass on some gained insight, he related the story to me while
> I was out living with him in california. Since it's stuck with me
> over the years, I'm guessing there was something to it. As in most
> technical interviews, he was asked to solve a fairly challenging
> technical problem during the interview. After working on it for a while,
> he came back with an answer. The interviewer said "are you sure?". He
> checked it over again quickly, and responded with "Yes, that's it, I'm
> sure". His observation was that he impressed the interviewer with the
> confidence in his response (and, of course, in that he was right as
> well), because it implied a higher degree of competence, and that this
> confidence was partly what helped him land the job.
>
> I'd like to present my thesis proposal defense as exhibit B. My proposal
> was lacking some technical details that could certainly be filled in
> later, but Mike (my advisor) emphasized to me beforehand the importance
> of making a confident presentation, so that my committee would feel
> comfortable trusting me to fill in those details. After the fact, he told
> me that while they did have reservations about some of the technical
> points that were missing, they had confidence in my abilities and
> therefore decided to pass me. If I had been confidently inaccurate I
> doubt I would have passed, and they certainly challenged me to that
> effect.
>
> So my point is that confidence isn't only about ego, but also about
> signaling competence. Confidence without competence will likely catch up
> with you at some point, with time-lag depending on your audience (e.g.,
> the Bush administration), but competence without confidence will cost you
> opportunities. That isn't to say that we shouldn't be open to ideas, but
> confidence shouldn't be written off as an undesirable "male" trait
> either.
>
> - kevin
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Lisa Hsu wrote:
>
> > it would be nice if open-mindedness had value. that's one of the things
> i
> > look for in people to love and be friends with.
> >
> > but in the corporate world, or working world, or whatever...there is a
> > premium on being "right." and people are more likely to believe you're
> right
> > if you yourself present that you believe you are right. and that has
> nothing
> > to do with gender, both men and women are more likely to believe someone
> who
> > says something with confidence (bluster?) than someone who hesitates. i
> > suppose this is part of the battle of the mind talked about before...but
> > that's a serious change to enact in all people.
> >
> > i once got into a discussion with a guy about a puzzle. he had said he
> found
> > some property X about the puzzle interesting. i said, "i didn't get the
> same
> > thing...do you think you could maybe go through your steps and tell me
> how
> > exactly you got that? i'm curious..." in essence, being very open to the
> > possibility that i was wrong in the way i approached this. this had the
> > interesting effect however, of him being in the elevated position and me
> in
> > the lower, where towards the end, he actually said, "i just thought this
> was
> > the easy part. just do the steps i told you and you'll see."
> >
> > however, i WAS right...and it was only when i just said, "your'e
> completely
> > missing that X !=3DY in every case. but we dont' have to keep talking
> abougt
> > this, i'm sure i'm right now."
> >
> > he came back with an emai later..."your [sic] right."
> >
> > don't mistake me for saying this was a sexist exchange or anything. i'm
> just
> > saying, as a person, when i come into a discussion open to the
> possibility
> > i'm wrong, then othe rpeople may assume i'm wrong and they're right. i
> > wondered whether the exchange would have not degenerated into him saying
> "i
> > don't get why you don't get this" if i had come on strong, like, "you're
> > wrong about your conclusion, that's not actually true" whether he would
> have
> > been on his heels defending his position rather than me. anywya...i will
> say
> > that certain aspects of this exchange can be typical between a man and a
> > woman.
> >
> > however...i think his bluster was actually more embarrassing to him than
> > anything because he had already taken several strong stands that he was
> > correct, only to be found wrong in the end. so maybe bluster has a
> delayed
> > negative effect. like bush blustering his way into iraq and only now are
> > people realizing he's just full of crap.
> >
> > lisa
> >
> > On 11/6/05, Victoria Li Fossum wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that it is very humble, reasonable, and open-minded of Laurie
> to
> > > present disclaimers with her opinions. If those qualities are
> "feminine"
> > > rather than "masculine", then that is one more way in which the world
> > > could benefit by becoming more feminine.
> > >
> > > However, that is clearly not the way to get ahead in the masculine
> world.
> > > One reason people hated John Kerry so much, even those who respected
> him
> > > ideologically, is that he was always willing to allow for some gray
> areas
> > > surrouding the important issues. Bush, on the other hand, blustered
> right
> > > ahead with his opinions with 100% conviction, independently of the
> extent
> > > to which they were based in fact. No matter your political allegiance ,
> > > you can't deny that this conviction was a factor that worked in Bush's
> > > favor in the previous election.
> > >
> > > So, is the answer for women to be more like men, to fit into the
> masculine
> > > world precisely the way men do? I think not, and that is why I am not
> a
> > > liberal feminist--instead I would rather see the world change, but I
> > > understand that this is unlikely to happen.
> > >
> > > -Victoria
> > >
> > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Melanie Reeves wrote:
> > >
> > > > This response helps me understand exactly why I agree with the ideas
> of
> > > equal opportunities for women, yet have no desire, in fact negative
> desire,
> > > to call myself a feminist. It's the same reason I don't call myself
> anything
> > > really; a republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic. I don't
> like
> > > labels. I like to simply decide how I feel per issue. The only label
> I'll
> > > take is "reasonablist", I like that.
> > > >
> > > > I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making disclaimers about her
> response
> > > is clearly a way of 1) showing humbleness and plurality of opinion, as
> James
> > > mentions as a possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a
> discussion
> > > about a subject she's not well read on. It's very possible that
> someone's
> > > response could change her opinion, so she's showing up front that's
> she's
> > > not 100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be in general - humble
> and
> > > open-minded.
> > > >
> > > > Melanie
> > > >
> > > > James Mickens wrote:
> > > > What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is it
> > > > trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man can
> do
> > > > and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a somewhat
> > > > different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that should be
> > > > cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist goal
> > > > some combination of the two? In general terms, are feminists trying
> > > > to champion "strict equality" or "equivalent value"? For example,
> > > > Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a subtly
> > > > gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This implies that
> > > > the "better" way to make a point is to use the stereotypically male
> > > > voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However, one
> > > > could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates humbleness and an
> > > > openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal of feminism to get
> > > > women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate the
> > > > inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is unclear to me .
> > > > In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the extent to which
> > > > "feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability of
> > > > human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which gendered
> > > > differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good or bad. For
> > > > example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of
> professionalism
> > > > in society and the values it fosters--individualism, excessive
> > > > consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1 form of
> > > > intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women must
> fit
> > > > into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize."
> > > > Presumably, the word "consumption" was modified with "excessive" in
> a
> > > > pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly male
> > > > trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait? In positing the
> > > > existence of one form of intelligence that is overvalued, we
> > > > implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female" intelligence
> > > > that is undervalued. But is this female intelligence *intrinsically *
> > > > linked with the biological condition of being female, or is an
> > > > artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this time? By
> > > > saying that women are "forced to fit" into patriarchical roles, we
> > > > seem to imply that there are essential, inviolable female
> > > > characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential, inviolable
> > > > male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men and women are in
> > > > fact essentially different at their cores. If this is true, then
> > > > should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate but
> > > > equivalent?
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she
> > > > directly relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
> > > > left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as I can
> > > > live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man can." I
> > > > agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people comfortable
> with
> > > > themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
> > > > equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
> > > > adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective, it's
> > > > unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever completely
> go
> > > > away. It's true that notions of beauty are socially constructed, but
> > > > just because they're imaginary doesn't mean that people will stop
> > > > daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness---this is
> > > > just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy ideals of
> > > > attractiveness, we can strive to make them more inclusive and less
> > > > self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with the term
> > > > "radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social engineering
> > > > goal which is unattainable, i.e., the abolishment of gendered
> > > > aesthetics. Once again, I think that the feminism should be
> > > > formulated in terms of making people comfortable with themselves,
> not
> > > > in terms of eradicating all notions of masculinity and femininity.
> > > > The former is acheivable, the latter is not.
> > > >
> > > > I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though
> (from
> > > > my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women. Instead of
> > > > describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "reasonable."
> > > > This seems trite, but I believe that it's a useful way to frame the
> > > > debate. When we as "feminists" try to explain our goals to the wider
> > > > public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing phrases
> > > > such as "radical feminism" or "subversion of the dominant gender
> > > > paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk in plain terms of
> > > > fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss gendered
> > > > differences in the salary received for equivalent jobs, there's no
> > > > reason to bring up the military-industrial-sexist complex, ossified
> > > > patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal---simply
> > > > put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money than a man for
> the
> > > > same job. This isn't an issue that belongs to feminist ideology,
> it's
> > > > an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with the name
> > > > "feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could be our
> allies.
> > > > Language is powerful, and the conservatives have been better at
> > > > semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book "Moral
> > > > Politics." Think about what used to be called tax "cuts"---the
> > > > popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans stopped using the word
> > > > "cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more difficult
> to
> > > > say that one is against "tax relief." But note that in introducing
> > > > this language of "relief," they've implictly proposed that taxes are
> > > > a burden, when one could argue that they are really the
> > > > responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society. In
> > > > terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to support
> > > > our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the quality of
> > > > the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like "radical feminist"
> (or
> > > > even just "feminist") are unnecessary and somewhat couterproductive ,
> > > > particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as
> generic
> > > > fairness issues.
> > > >
> > > > I realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
> > > > theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out of
> > > > hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that explain why
> > > > things are the way they are. I also realize that as intellectuals,
> we
> > > > have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
> > > > necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses.
> Nevertheless,
> > > > by removing the "radical" from "radical feminist," i.e., by
> accepting
> > > > that there will always be notions of gendered aesthetics, I think we
> > > > get a more realistic framework for improving the lives of women (and
> > > > men too!). Then, by framing "feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
> > > > that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we have a
> > > > better chance of actually improving the world, as opposed to
> > > > alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies.
> > > >
> > > > ~j
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
------=_Part_42797_28628868.1131390330694
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
i completely agree. i am where i am because i feel like i am
pretty confident and, when i'm not feeling it, fake it really well :).
the question is where the line is between confidence and arrogance
(which i suppose is somewhat related to kevin's point about confidence
without competence).
the world would be better if some women were a little more confident
(but not cocky) and some men were a little less arrogant, without being
weenies ;).
in an unrelated note, i would also like to proclaim that victoria
fossum possesses the quadfecta (what's the analogous word for trifecta
with four, if any?) of brilliance, bodacious beauty, sweetness of
personality, and athleticism all in one person. and i hope
nothing bad ever happens to you again. don't forget, you're a
quadfecta! screw the dumbasses.
lisa
On 11/7/05, Kevin Lochner < klochner Æ eecs.umich.edu >
wrote:
(note to Eric: some friends of mine have a mailing list for general debate here
at michigan, and we're currently discussing issues of feminism. ; I
thought you would like to be CC'd because I'm using you as an example -
BCC to avoid spam after the fact). I have a couple of anecdotes related to
Lisa's ideas about what we're calling "masculinity" and the corporate world.
My brother interviewed for an engineering job a few years years back, and
wanting to pass on some gained insight, he related the story to me while I
was out living with him in california. Since it's stuck with me over the
years, I'm guessing there was something to it. ;As in most
technical interviews, he was asked to solve a fairly challenging technical
problem during the interview. After working on it for a while , he came back
with an answer. The interviewer said "are you sure?". He
checked it over again quickly, and responded with "Yes, that's it, I'm sure".
His observation was that he impressed the interviewer with the confidence in
his response (and, of course, in that he was right as
well), because it implied a higher degree of competence, and that this
confidence was partly what helped him land the job. I'd like to present my
thesis proposal defense as exhibit B. My proposal was lacking some technical
details that could certainly be filled in
later, but Mike (my advisor) emphasized to me beforehand the importance of
making a confident presentation, so that my committee would feel comfortable
trusting me to fill in those details. After the fact , he told
me that while they did have reservations about some of the technical points
that were missing, they had confidence in my abilities and therefore decided
to pass me. If I had been confidently inaccurate I doubt I would have passed,
and they certainly challenged me to that
effect. So my point is that confidence isn't only about ego, but also about
signaling competence. Confidence without competence will likely catch up with
you at some point, with time-lag depending on your audience (
e.g., the Bush administration), but competence without confidence will cost
you opportunities. That isn't to say that we shouldn't be open to ideas, but
confidence shouldn't be written off as an undesirable "male" trait
either. - kevin On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Lisa Hsu wrote: > it would be nice
if open-mindedness had value. that's one of the things i > look for in
people to love and be friends with. >
> but in the corporate world, or working world, or whatever...there is a
> premium on being "right." and people are more likely to believe you're
right > if you yourself present that you believe you are right. and that
has nothing
> to do with gender, both men and women are more likely to believe someone
who > says something with confidence (bluster?) than someone who hesitates.
i > suppose this is part of the battle of the mind talked about
before...but
> that's a serious change to enact in all people. > > i once got
into a discussion with a guy about a puzzle. he had said he found > some
property X about the puzzle interesting. i said, "i didn't get the same
> thing...do you think you could maybe go through your steps and tell me
how > exactly you got that? i'm curious..." in essence, being very open to
the > possibility that i was wrong in the way i approached this. this had
the
> interesting effect however, of him being in the elevated position and me
in > the lower, where towards the end, he actually said, " ;i just
thought this was > the easy part. just do the steps i told you and you'll
see."
> > however, i WAS right...and it was only when i just said, "
;your'e completely > missing that X !=3DY in every case. but we dont ' have
to keep talking abougt > this, i'm sure i'm right now." ;
> > he came back with an emai later..."your [sic] right." ; >
> don't mistake me for saying this was a sexist exchange or anything. i'm
just > saying, as a person, when i come into a discussion open to the
possibility
> i'm wrong, then othe rpeople may assume i'm wrong and they're right . i
> wondered whether the exchange would have not degenerated into him saying
"i > don't get why you don't get this" if i had come on strong, like,
"you're
> wrong about your conclusion, that's not actually true" whether he would
have > been on his heels defending his position rather than me. anywya...i
will say > that certain aspects of this exchange can be typical between a
man and a
> woman. > > however...i think his bluster was actually more
embarrassing to him than > anything because he had already taken several
strong stands that he was > correct, only to be found wrong in the end. so
maybe bluster has a delayed
> negative effect. like bush blustering his way into iraq and only now are
> people realizing he's just full of crap. > > lisa > > On
11/6/05, Victoria Li Fossum <
vfossum Æ eecs.umich.edu > wrote: > > > > I agree that it
is very humble, reasonable, and open-minded of Laurie to > > present
disclaimers with her opinions. If those qualities are "feminine "
> > rather than "masculine", then that is one more way in which the
world > > could benefit by becoming more feminine. > > > >
However, that is clearly not the way to get ahead in the masculine world.
> > One reason people hated John Kerry so much, even those who respected
him > > ideologically, is that he was always willing to allow for some
gray areas > > surrouding the important issues. Bush, on the other hand,
blustered right
> > ahead with his opinions with 100% conviction, independently of the
extent > > to which they were based in fact. No matter your political
allegiance, > > you can't deny that this conviction was a factor that
worked in Bush's
> > favor in the previous election. > > > > So, is the
answer for women to be more like men, to fit into the masculine > >
world precisely the way men do? I think not, and that is why I am not a
> > liberal feminist--instead I would rather see the world change , but
I > > understand that this is unlikely to happen. > > ; > >
-Victoria > > > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Melanie Reeves wrote:
> > > > > This response helps me understand exactly why I
agree with the ideas of > > equal opportunities for women, yet have no
desire, in fact negative desire, > > to call myself a feminist . It's the
same reason I don't call myself anything
> > really; a republican or a democrat, an atheist or an agnostic . I
don't like > > labels. I like to simply decide how I feel per issue . The
only label I'll > > take is "reasonablist", I like that.
> > > > > > I also agree that my mom (Laurie) making
disclaimers about her response > > is clearly a way of 1) showing
humbleness and plurality of opinion, as James > > mentions as a
possibility, and 2) a comfortable way of entering a discussion
> > about a subject she's not well read on. It's very possible that
someone's > > response could change her opinion, so she's showing up
front that's she's > > not 100% set in her opinion... a smart way to be
in general - humble and
> > open-minded. > > > > > > Melanie > ; > >
> > > James Mickens < jmickens Æ eecs.umich.edu > wrote:
> > > What is the overarching goal of feminism? In broad strokes, is
it
> > > trying to prove that women are capable of doing anything a man
can do > > > and vice versa? Or is it to prove that women have a
somewhat > > > different (yet equally valuable) set of skills that
should be
> > > cherished for their gender-specific uniqueness? Is the feminist
goal > > > some combination of the two? In general terms , are
feminists trying > > > to champion "strict equality " or "equivalent
value"? For example,
> > > Michelle commented that Laurie's use of disclaimers is a
subtly > > > gendered method of intellectual self-deprecation. This
implies that > > > the "better" way to make a point is to use the
stereotypically male
> > > voice, i.e., one that is bolder and eschews qualifiers. However
, one > > > could argue that the use of qualifiers indicates
humbleness and an > > > openness to plurality of opinion. Is the goal
of feminism to get
> > > women to talk like men? Men to talk like women? To appreciate
the > > > inherent value in both modes of speech? The answer is
unclear to me. > > > In fact, it's often hard for me to divine the
extent to which
> > > "feminism" in the abstract accepts or denies the malleability
of > > > human behavior and intellect, and the extent to which
gendered > > > differences (intrinsic or not) can be judged as good
or bad. For
> > > example, Michelle asks us to question "the concept of
professionalism > > > in society and the values it
fosters--individualism , excessive > > > consumption, a hierarchical
system of work in which 1 form of
> > > intelligence is prioritized--creates a system in which women
must fit > > > into traditional patriarchical roles in order to
equalize." > > > Presumably, the word "consumption " was modified with
"excessive" in a
> > > pejorative sense. So, is pejorative consumption a distinctly
male > > > trait? Is individualism a distinctly male trait ? In
positing the > > > existence of one form of intelligence that is
overvalued, we
> > > implicitly posit the existence of a second, "female "
intelligence > > > that is undervalued. But is this female
intelligence *intrinsically* > > > linked with the biological
condition of being female, or is an
> > > artifact of our culture right now in this place and in this
time? By > > > saying that women are "forced to fit" ; into
patriarchical roles, we > > > seem to imply that there are essential,
inviolable female
> > > characteristics that are being shoehorned into essential ,
inviolable > > > male roles. But such an analysis assumes that men
and women are in > > > fact essentially different at their cores. If
this is true, then
> > > should feminists be pushing for strict equality, or separate
but > > > equivalent? > > > > > > Personally , I
like Laurie's attitude towards feminism because she > > ; > directly
relates feminism to one's quality of life: "Any mysogyny
> > > left lurking in dark corners is of no concern to me as long as
I can > > > live my life as I choose, the same way in which any man
can." I > > > agree. The goal of feminism should be to make people
comfortable with
> > > themselves and free to make informed decisions. This is *not*
> > > equivalent to the goal of destroying gender as a sociological
> > > adjective. From the biological anthropologist perspective , it's
> > > unrealistic to think that gendered aesthetics will ever
completely go > > > away. It's true that notions of beauty are
socially constructed, but > > > just because they're imaginary doesn
't mean that people will stop
> > > daydreaming. Every society has ideals of attractiveness- --this
is > > > just a fact of life. Although we cannot hope to destroy
ideals of > > > attractiveness, we can strive to make them more
inclusive and less
> > > self-destructive. One reason that I feel uncomfortable with
the term > > > "radical feminist" is that (to me) it implies a social
engineering > > > goal which is unattainable ,
i.e., the abolishment of gendered > > > aesthetics. Once again, I
think that the feminism should be > > > formulated in terms of making
people comfortable with themselves, not > > > in terms of eradicating
all notions of masculinity and femininity.
> > > The former is acheivable, the latter is not. > > ; >
> > > I never use the term "feminist" to describe myself, even though
(from > > > my perspective at least) I believe in empowering women.
Instead of
> > > describing myself as a feminist, I describe myself as "
;reasonable." > > > This seems trite, but I believe that it's a
useful way to frame the > > > debate. When we as " ;feminists" try
to explain our goals to the wider
> > > public, it's not useful to speak in a vernacular containing
phrases > > > such as "radical feminism" or " ;subversion of the
dominant gender > > > paradigm." We will win more converts if we talk
in plain terms of
> > > fairness and reasonableness. For example, when we discuss
gendered > > > differences in the salary received for equivalent
jobs, there's no > > > reason to bring up the military-industrial
-sexist complex, ossified
> > > patterns of systematic discrimation, etc. Here's the deal
---simply > > > put, it's not fair for women to recieve less money
than a man for the > > > same job. This isn't an issue that belongs
to feminist ideology, it's
> > > an issue that should concern everyone. So why label it with
the name > > > "feminist"? This will simply alienate people who could
be our allies. > > > Language is powerful, and the conservatives have
been better at
> > > semantic framing for years, as described in Lakoff's book
"Moral > > > Politics." Think about what used to be called tax
"cuts"---the > > > popular term now is tax "relief." Republicans
stopped using the word
> > > "cut" and starting using "relief" because it's much more
difficult to > > > say that one is against "tax relief." But note
that in introducing > > > this language of "relief," they've
implictly proposed that taxes are
> > > a burden, when one could argue that they are really the >
> > responsibility of all citizens living in a caring civil society . In
> > > terms of moving public opinion, the language that we use to
support
> > > our ideas is just as important, if not more so, than the
quality of > > > the idea itself. Thus, I think that terms like
"radical feminist" (or > > > even just "feminist ") are unnecessary
and somewhat couterproductive,
> > > particularly when we can frame traditional feminist issues as
generic > > > fairness issues. > > > > > > I
realize that there's a time and a place for complex dialectical
> > > theories of oppression and what not; I don't discount them out
of > > > hand since, as a scientist, I appreciate theories that
explain why > > > things are the way they are. I also realize that as
intellectuals, we
> > > have distaste for the Straussian simplification that is often
> > > necessary to shift the opinions of the unwashed masses .
Nevertheless, > > > by removing the "radical" from "radical
feminist,"
i.e., by accepting > > > that there will always be notions of gendered
aesthetics, I think we > > > get a more realistic framework for
improving the lives of women (and > > > men too!). Then , by framing
"feminist" issues as "fairness" issues
> > > that speak to everyone's sense of decency, I think that we
have a > > > better chance of actually improving the world, as
opposed to > > > alienating fence-sitters who could be our allies .
> > > > > > ~j > > > > > > > > >
------=_Part_42797_28628868.1131390330694--
|
