From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex-role stereotypes (was Re: Challenge to Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:39:58
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec3.150121.27031@panix.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec3135245@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec5.110306.21929@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jk@panix.com's message of Sat, 5 Dec 1992 11:03:06 GMT


[paragraphs shifted around to put the justifications with the suggested
stereotypes.]
In article <1992Dec5.110306.21929@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Okay, let's assume for a minute that, in fact, there isn't anything
>>wrong with sex-role stereotypes.  I'll echo Lenore's challenge here, and
>>ask you to define exactly what sex-role stereotypes you, personally,
>>would like to see our society use, at this point in time.  As you define
>>them, please note why it is that you think they are beneficial.

>It's not the sort of issue that lends itself to exhaustive and exact
>definitions.  "How can we best live together" is not a question with
>scientific answers.  Some points seem clearer than others, though, so
>here are four sex-role stereotypes that I would like everyone to believe
>in:

>1.  It is a specially good thing for the mother to be the primary
>caregiver for small children.  There are few things a mother of small
>children can do that are more valuable than performing that function.

>I think 1. is a good stereotype because I think it is good for small
>children to be looked after by someone who has the emotional makeup
>needed to nurture children and who cares for them as much as she cares
>for her own life.  The mother is not certain to fit the bill, but she's
>more likely to do so than any other candidate. 

What about the father?  I'm pretty amazed, actually, that all the
"father's rights" advocates didn't leap on you here.  Here's a counter
argument: It's better for the father to be the primary caregiver for
small children because that gives him the opportunity to develop the
"bond" with the children that the mother has already developed by
carrying them around and then nursing the infant.  This way, children
will have close bonds with both a man and a woman, just as people here
have suggested is important.

>2.  If a man takes up with a woman and she becomes pregnant and has a
>child, he has a special and very serious responsibility to support the
>woman and her child, materially and otherwise.

>Stereotype 2. is a good stereotype because it's needed to support
>stereotype 1., and because it's good for children to have two adults who
>feel unconditionally responsible for their well-being.  A father's
>feeling of attachment to his children is more artificial than a mother's
>(for one thing, he hasn't been carrying the kid around in his body for 9
>months).  So it helps to have social stereotypes to support it.

Once again, the men's rights activists are falling down on the job.  So,
you want the fathers to be completely stressed out from being required
to single-handedly support the whole family (it's pretty hard for one
person to do this these days), you don't want the father to be able to
develop the emotional bond with the children, just to take care of them
out of a sense of duty?  So, he'll probably emotionally neglect them,
when he's even around, which won't be much, unless he's lucky enough to
get a pretty amazing salary.

>3.  It is particularly bad for a man to act brutally toward a woman.

>Stereotype 3. is a good stereotype because men tend to be more
>combatative (as well a physically bigger and stronger) than women. 
>Women's lesser combatativeness is, I think, partly innate and partly
>cultural.  The cultural component is a good thing because it is an
>aspect of stereotype 1., which is a good thing.

Humm...where *are* those men's rights guys.  So, a woman should get a
lighter sentence if she is violent to a man, since it really isn't as
bad?

>4.  Being a soldier is man's work.

>Stereotype 4. is a good thing for reasons stated in my earlier post
>(all-male combat units are better) and also because it supports 
>stereotypes 1., 2., and 3.

Have you got proof about the all-male combat units?  How about as
compared to all-female combat units?  Oh, I forgot...we don't *allow*
women in combat, so we don't actually *know* if they are any good.  So,
you're simply assuming that all-male units are better.

>It seems to me that all four stereotypes have a lot of support from
>women as well as men.  People in America in 1992 are rather shy about
>publicly affirming stereotype 1., but it matches what most women
>actually do.

*LAUGH*...oh, dear.  This is really priceless.  So, you're saying that
because the stereotype is *already* being perpetuated, it *must* be what
women want?  That's pretty twisted.

>So I suppose one way of making my point is to say that if most people
>actually hold these stereotypes, and if it's hard to find examples of
>societies that have rejected 1. and 4, and if even most feminists don't
>want to get rid of 2. and 3., and if on the face of it the four
>stereotypes collectively promote important benefits with respect to the
>way children are raised that can't be achieved any other way, then why
>not accept them unless there's some *very* strong reason to reject
>them?

Because they're stupid, oppressive, and injurious to both men and women?
Nah, we've already got them, everyone's already unhappy...why mess with
a system that's already broken?

>Presumably, accepting stereotypes doesn't create
>universal bliss and struggling against them doesn't create universal
>misery.  But if you compare what things were like for a child growing
>up in 1962 and what things are like for a child growing up in 1992, I
>come out in favor of stereotypes.

Could this *possibly* be because the economic situation has changed,
rather than because of any stereotypes?  How do you *know* that it is
the result of people for or against stereotypes?

>>>At any time, I would expect sex-role stereotypes, like
>>>other social standards, to tend to evolve toward a state that enables
>>>most people to live together in a reasonably productive and satisfactory
>>>way under the circumstances that then exist.
>>
>>And yet, this has not happened, despite hundreds of years of most people 
>>simply accepting these stereotypes.  Can you explain why this is?

>I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  Nothing is ever perfect, but
>things are always better than they might be.

Oh, great.  It could be worse, so why fix anything.

I really wish that we could reverse all the societal stereotypes right
now, so that you could live as women do for a while...then see how *you*
like it, and whether you would be such an enthusiastic defender of the
status quo if you weren't in the better position.  Oh, well...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism