From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Feminists Growing Old Alone (was: Japanese Women's Lib)
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:27:07 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <cbyj2rk.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.064751.24560@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>>	For my part, I think that Clarence Thomas was a boor to
>>discuss the exploits of Long Dong Silver to someone who clearly didn't
>>enjoy it.
>
>Assuming he actually *did* this, I would agree it to be a boorish
>act. But now feminists seriously propose to CRIMINALIZE boorishness??!!

Hmmm.  I don't know whether he did or he didn't.  However, given the treatment
that women typically receive when they bring out such an accusation, it's hard
to discount her story out-of-hand.  It sounds to me like that's what you've
done.  Skepticism is one thing.  Naively believing him over her is another.
It seems to me that a real skeptic would either disbelieve both of them, or
reserve judgement in the absence of difinitive evidence.

Also, it is naive to say that feminists want to criminalize "boorishness,"
except where boorishness crosses the over line to become blackmail for
sex (or perpetual deference to men).  Women say that they can't always tell
the difference.  If you can draw a clear distinction that makes sense to them,
please do!

> ... given that even
>same-sex couples typically have one partner with a tendency to be
>dominant over the other, why has it become High Holey Dogma that this
>is an inadmissible, inexcusable, and just plain horrible model
>for husband and wife?

The cultural feminists would say that those same-sex couples that adopt
dominant/submissive roles are simply aping the roles they see in the
culture-at-large.  They're skeptical that such role-playing is necessary
or healthy in either case.  They'd say that these roles derived from a
time when marauders took women as slaves, and then institutionalized the
form so as to placate the indiginous men whom they corrupted.

>>: ... Surely you have not failed to note the great likelihood
>>:that an uncompromising feminist will grow old alone; go to any New Age
>>:gathering here in the Bay Area, and you will find it filled with
>>:unattached, intense, and aging Goddess-worshippers, perusing every kind
>>:of "psychic" flim-flam and "wholistic" twaddle in a desperate
>>:search for meaning in their lives. 
>>	Maybe she might not want to get married.
>
>Many don't, and never do. My experience is, though, that even the most
>militant feminists (except for actual lesbians), once you know them
>well enough for them to say what they really feel, DO want a lifelong
>marriage to one man (even if they won't *trust* the son-of-a-bitch!).

Funny.  The complaint I hear from women in this age group isn't that
they're dying for lack of a man to give their lives meaning, quite the
contrary.  Even though they'd like very much to be in a committed
relationship with a man, they complain that the men of their generation
don't seem to be able to cope with women who have their own lives, aren't
in the habit of deferring to men by default, etc.  To most men of that era,
an independent woman is just too much trouble, when the "trophy wives" are
easier to "get!"  For most younger men, it's difficult to cope with the
stigma attacted to being with an older woman.  Plus, a young man's
developmental needs almost assure that he'll have to pull away from her at
some point.  It is the fact that these pioneering women left the men of
their generation behind that leads to their being unattached now.  If they're
intense, it's because standing against the prevailing culture is hard work.

I do agree with you about the New Age twaddle.  But with all that I've still
found some very fun, interesting, and helpful things at some of those fairs.

>> ... "Oh, that old lady next door is so dependent on
>>:her husband, just like a typical woman of her generation."
>>:And I wanted to reply (but held my tongue), "Well, SHE is still
>>:married, you are not." So it is all voluntary, you see.  ...

Hmmm.  In a sense, yes.  However, the expectation of women in that generation
was that they'd marry, defer to, and depend on their husbands.  The expectation
of men in that generation was that they'd marry, be dependable, and lead
their wives.  One problem with this is when the man dies first and the woman
is left to fend for herself--having had little or no practice at doing so.
If I were a woman, I wouldn't find that a pleasant prospect in old age.

Voluntary choices are always made in the context of a prevailing set of values.
Unless someone has a strong reason to go against the prevailing values, those
values prevail by default.  So, you see, although it's voluntary, it's not
necessarily volitional (which is what I think you meant to imply).

> ... she would like to get remarried, but she's in her 40s, and
>the odds are strongly against her. ...

On what do you base this conclusion about her odds?  All of those "man
shortage" stories have been shown to be, to borrow a word from you, twaddle.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
Xref: sparky soc.men:8190 soc.women:8750