From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:02:15 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>In article <oneil.717224759@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>>I came away from the book realizing that women's lives really are
>>considered worth less than men's.  Maybe the men in this discussion won't
>>understand this, but the part in the book where Faludi describes how a 
>>cancer patient's treatment was withheld because she was pregnant because
>>her doctors decided that she was terminal and that they should just go in
>>and do a cesarean on her even though it would probably kill her.  Without
>>/her/ permission.  Without even her family's permission.  It was like she
>>didn't even matter.  (And the baby died, by the way, because it wasn't
>>yet viable.)

>Was this example "because she was a women" or because it is just anouther
>example of bad medical judgement?  "Get a clue", men face bad medical
>treatment and judgement too.

Excuse me.  How many men do you know who can get pregnant?  The choice that
the doctors were making was between her life and the life of the fetus.  
Think about it for a second.  She was still able to make her own decision
and did so quite clearly when she said she didn't want the cesarean to 
take place.  Her family was stilla ble to make the decision and they said
no as well.  The decision was made with NO consideration for her life --
only in consideration of the fetus inside of her.  So, yes, it was because
she was a woman.  You can't call it simply a case of bad medical treatment
and bad judgement. 

>Negitive statements like "women's lives are really considered worth less then
>men" is politically biased rhetoric.  And biased political rhetoric is the basis
>of Faludi book.  She gives a very unbalanced view of women today.  Her purpose
>is to divide and disturb women.  Like modern feminists she would have nothing
>to say if it were not negitive.  What one would have to call and unbalanced
>point of view.

Oh give me a break.  Women's lives are considered worth less.  If they 
were given the same consideration, then we would see more medical research
in the areas of breast cancer and ovarian cancer.  We'd see more consideration
given to victims of rape and sexual assault.

There are many pro-life individuals I know who have said that if it comes
down to a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby
that the mother should let the baby live.  Are you telling me that this
is fair?

>Feminist's like Faludi are in moral bankruptcy.  "They just don't get it".
>There are opportunities for women everywhere and women are succeeding in
>significant numbers especially white women.  Feminist's like Faludi fail to
>see that women have to take resoncibility for their own success and failures.
>(And "get a clue" women have to face their problems like successful men do", 
>like it or not.)

Statements the one you just made -- that feminists are in moral bankruptcy
-- now that's rhetoric.  How can you say that we just don't get it.  We 
live it and we know what we live.  And for your information, college 
educated white women still make less than high school educated white men.
The professional jobs that are female dominated are paid very little, even
though the responsibilities we carry are immense.  (Teachers, for example.)

I do take responsibility for my own successes and failures, but I can also
see where society needs to take a wake up call and start giving women more
credit.  

>Books like Faludi's do nothing to help "heal and nuture" a society that is
>wounded.  It's does nothing but promote hate and distrust.  But she is right
>about "backlash" in a way.  Backlash from her point of view, backlash from
>the feminist point of view, but not from other non-feminist women and men.

Ah, I see.  So, what is a feminist then?

>What many feminists see as backlash others see as the long overdue challenge
>to a system of ideas that are more political than truthful.  A challenge
>that has gone unanswered simply because people were confussing gender equality
>with feminism.  Feminist thought, social and political, is faulty.  It has been
>published for years because it was written by women.  Feminist are not happy
>with having to being challenge.  Feminist are not happy to not have everything
>they say not accepted.  They "feel threatened".  They are not "happy campers".

Oh, I don't mind being challenged, as long as my opponent can rely on
more than just the current rhetoric.

And I'd say that men are terribly threatened by feminists because
these women do say things that threaten the male stronghold on power.
Heck, I think the response of men, most of whom were brought up to
expect they would be in positiosn of power, to this loss is entirely
understandable, even though I still think they are wrong.
As one is well able to see in soc.men, soc.women, and alt.feminism, the
men who dislike feminism really get offended when women don't agree with
everything that they say.

Anyway, glad to see you added the Quaylesque conclusion that we are not
"happy campers." :-)

>starbuck

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1935 soc.men:17254 soc.women:17314