From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Summary: Women's Reality
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:44:34 GMT

 
From the book, "Women's Reality" (by Anne Schaef)  :
 
	"Once a woman is helped to see that her
         perceptions are valid and that it is all
    	 right to want to blame and feel like a
    	 victim, she can begin moving into the     
    	 rage stage...
    
    THE FIRST MYTH is that the White Male System is the only thing that exists...
  
    THE SECOND MYTH is that the White Male System is innately superior... 
    
    THE THIRD MYTH is that the White Male System knows and understands everything...
    
    THE FOURTH MYTH is that it is possible to be totally logical, rational,
    and objective"


In article <1992Nov13.164000.10607@mr.med.ge.com>, wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
> Peter,

> As the book also says, most males will not understand what she has to say
> at all. I agree, you certainly proved that........

 I assume you have imputed my gender from my name.  Would you judge the 
 content of a person's words by their imputed gender? 

> To show how male you are, you took a quote out of context 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    You are imputing motive here.   You don't know my motive(s).

> To show how male you are, you took a quote out of context 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The "rage stage" quote appears on the book's dust jacket.  A dust jacket 
attempts to show a book to best advantage so that bookstore browsers
may decide to buy it.  The "FIRST ... FOURTH MYTH" quote is the book's
thesis.  Thus IMO these quotes are representative of the book's contents.

> to make readers think that she supports women being victims, at least 
> that's what it appears you tried to do.  She doesn't.  Earlier in the same
> chapter she says:

> 		 "As her perceptions are validated, she will begin to trust
> 		  herself. She will become more willing to clarify and check 
> 		  out her perceptions with less fear of recrimination. She
> 		  will learn to discriminate between those which are valid
> 		  and those which are not."

 The "perceptions" being validated are the notion that there's no such
 thing as objective reality (that's just the White Male System); that
 a woman's "feelings" (the Emerging Female System) count for more (or
 should count for more) than any objective evidence or rational arguments. 

 She presents a view of women as emotional, temperamental, irrational, full 
 of temper tantrums.  She brings up some of the worst attributes of the
 traditional female-gender stereotype and says, "That's wonderful! If
 others don't understand why an adult (woman) would act like a petulant
 child, that's because they can't see beyond the White Male System!

I think she sells women short.

> What is being described at the point you quoted is the stages a women must
> go through during therapy. It is a therapy based on women's perceptions of
> the world. Later on in the text, comparison's between "The White Male system"
> and the "Female System" are made. As she says, which system to use depends 
> on the context of the situation.

It's really hard to know what to do with phrases like "therapy based on
women's perceptions".  Just what are "women's perceptions," and how do
they differ from "men's perceptions" ?  About all the book offers here
are the same hoary old gender-stereotypes.  Women are warm, nurturing,
feeling, and form consensus-based communities; men  (oops: I mean WHITE
men) are cold, power-driven, rational, and form hierarchical communities.

It's hard to know what to do with so grand a generalization as a world
divided into two great Systems (White Male and Emerging Female).

I do admit to a great distrust of Grand Systems That Explain All (but
most such theories are at least complex enough to be entertaining).

And I never could figure out why she referred specifically to a WHITE
Male System, or where non-white males fit into her grand System of Systems.

What is one to do with an author who has rejected logic, rationality,
and objectivity as part of a mythical White Male System?  How does
one reason with someone who has rejected reason?  

> Her four myths are quite true. 

> > THE FIRST MYTH is that the White Male System is the only thing that exists...

First you have to show that it does exist.

> > THE SECOND MYTH is that the White Male System is innately superior... 

You haven't even shown the existence of a White Male System, and now
you have people (strawmen) walking about declaring this System to
be "innately superior" ?
 
> > THE THIRD MYTH is that the White Male System knows and understands 
> > everything...

I've never heard claims of "knows and understands everything" made for
anything less than a deity.  Have you?  In any case, anything which
"knows and understands everything" clearly IS "innately superior", and
anything which is not innately superior (to anything less than godlike) 
won't "know and understand everything".  So why state both "myths" ?
 
> > THE FOURTH MYTH is that it is possible to be totally logical, rational,
> > and objective"

This is the mildest of her attacks on logic, rationality, and objectivity.
Throughout the book we're told how reason is just a White Male invention, one
that really shouldn't count for much when weighed against A Women's Feelings. 

Logic, reason, and objectivity are far better tools for settling disputes 
than raw emotions, and are the basis for the technological life support
that keeps some five billion of us alive on this planet.

> Try being accepted as a female by men sometime.

No, that's your lifeplan.  Choose for yourself, I'll choose for myself.

> I'm just starting my transition and I couldn't believe how bad many men
> treat women. Also notice the word "totally" in the fourth myth. I suppose
> you believe in everything she says is a myth. 

IMO the book is an extended temper tantrum.  If this is "therapy" I hope
my tax dollars aren't being used to pay for it.

> I would expect that as it maintains your superiority.......

Has someone made claims of superiority?  Where, when?  Or do you mean
that because I consider this book is not only hateful but also laughably
bad then I must be a racist, sexist pig?

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men