From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:42:11 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <oneil.717530535@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>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. 

Excuse me.  In the statement I read, it was not stated that the woman
"rejected" the cesarean; rather it says it was done without her permission.
It could well have been the case that the woman was unconcious and incapable
of making the decision.  It *could* even be that the family was not there and
there was no time to contact them because the decision had to be made *NOW*.
It *might* not even have been bad medical treatment as much as a tragic outcome
to a no-win decision.

NOTE the use of "could have been" above.  *I* don't know, and neither do either
of you, I presume.

If you want to argue that in such a case, the decision in favor of the child
was sexist, that's fine, and I'd even agree with you that sexism may be
*partly* the reason to decide in favor of the child.  But you've altered the
original statement (which I suspect is already slanted from reality) beyond
reasonable bounds when you state that the woman had "made her own decision...
didn't want the cesarean...and they [her family] said no as well."


>>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?

Let's face it.  It's not fair either way.  *Any* way.  It's not even fair to
make the mother make the decision.  [Think on that one awhile please.]
Life's not fair.  Get used to it.


>>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.)

Is this (the teachers example) a reflection of just sexism; or do you suppose
that the teaching profession as a whole (irrelevant of gender) is not highly-
thought of as well?

Actually, I'm not at all convinced that there are many cases of women in the
same job with the same experience etc. make less than their male counterparts.

Don't bother with the statistics about what women make vs. men when it's clear
from the onset that such statistics will be skewed by fewer women than men in
the workforce for *way* fewer years for most jobs.  I'm not saying this is not
an issue, or that there aren't inequities, it's just that I'm tired of seeing
data/examples that are not *really* representative.  GIGO.  I want good data.


>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.  

I honestly believe that in most cases women who are doing their job competently
*are* getting the credit they deserve.  I know of some horror stories and am
appalled by them, but I haven't seen any decent statistics (see above) showing
pay discrimination.  Does anyone have any RECENT statistics comparing SAME job
with SAME experience and SAME education and DIFFERENT salaries with a gender
bias?  I would like to see it, if so.  In it's absence I have to conclude that
things are getting better in this area, and it's a matter of time for things to
equalize.

[This is not flame-bait, nor senseless posting; just *my* impressions from my
personal experiences.  I'd cheerfully retract if some data as I described was
given.]

I *do* see considerably "too few" women going into the work-force (which may be
an unfair but biological reality) and "too few" women going after the high-
paying jobs and think that this is an area that still needs a *lot* of work
from both sides.


>>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." :-)
>
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism