From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Vintage Ann Landers ... and thought experiments.
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:24:43 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In article <182vqtINN5pn@agate.berkeley.edu>
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

[Ann Landers column deleted]
>This column illustrates the way women were traditionally brought up
>to act as social police of other women; to penalize nonstandard
>appearance, lifestyle choices or behavior in their female
>counterparts.

>My question is: To what extent do you think this sort of behavior
>occurs today, among contemporary women with feminist sensibilities?

Remember, you asked.

I think it occurs to a greater extent than my feminist friends are
willing to admit (to me).

As usual, I can only relate personal anecdotes about this kind of
behavior.  I suspect that it is more widespread than the small circle
of women I know with "feminist sensibilities".  The women I will talk
about below have had discussions with me that make their interest in
advancing the lot of women clear (both career-wise and socially).
They consider themselves feminists.

One interchange during lunch left me perfectly shocked.  Two women
(20's) were talking about a wedding they recently attended and after
dispensing with the bride's choice of spouse began chewing away at the
bride's organization of the wedding.  When they were finished they
started on the apparent unkemptness of the bride's house and how her
curtains did not match the rug.  The guy sitting across from me
looking confused shrugged his shoulders lightly.  I asked "Do you like
this woman"?  They said they liked her but didn't care for her living
arrangements.  It seemed an awfully mean characterization for someone
they liked.

2nd story: Two different women are talking about feminism and the
various problems that women have in the workplace and moving up the
scientific ladder.  I was not included in the discussion (though I
tried) because surely I could not have significant input to offer.
When they had cited the depressing statistics and gone through the
possible reasons for them they moved on to the feminist movement.
Summarizing - we would join an organization like NOW if there were not
so many lesbians running it.  This one also threw me.  These are women
who want ERA passed and are willing to contribute money to female
political candidates but are troubled by lesbians in NOW?  I thought
only men on soc.men were troubled by lesbians :-).

The last story (aren't you glad :-)) concerns a case that is not quite
policing but is more along the lines of self-appointed gaurdian.  A
pretty (pretty is their characterization, I didn't see her) female
student was looking for a work-study job.  Two (or three I can't
remember) women were commenting positively on her looks and her
resume; a man asked (clearly tongue-in-cheek) "Maybe I should ask her
out?"  "Oh no" one quickly replied and quite seriously "She's much too
sophisticated for you."  The others agreed, saying yes and nodding
their heads in affirmation.  They went on to talk about the kind of
men who would most suit the woman.  They can guess her taste in men
(if men at all) just by looking at her and her resume?  Does it make
sense for other women to steer "unqualified" men away from a woman
they consider (for lack of a better word) a princess?

From time to time I have asked directly where these characterizations
come from and if they are not antithetical to a feminist program.
Sometimes one will agree with me, reluctantly.  Usually this question
is ignored and other times I get "*sigh* you are not letting us have
any fun".

Is it just fun?  Or is it a pattern that keeps women and men "in their
place."  Where have I heard this before?

If you believe my subjective interpretation of the above situations do
these women still qualify as feminists?

Please keep in mind that these events are rare and that these women
are my friends.  In most of our social discussion time we talk about
politics from a center or left point of view, worry if the Supreme
Court will overturn Roe v Wade and recount the latest Dan Quayle gaffe
with much laughter, etc.

Do not take this post to mean that I expect feminists to be perfect
torch bearers for equality or to have all the answers.  I think it is
more important to talk about these sorts of things as they come up so
we can learn from them.  But how am I to address these questions when
my credibility is handicapped, in their eyes, by my gender?

In article <laahk3INNbb6@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>I do tend to think that when this behavior occurs it isn't
>necessarily being done maliciously or with political intent.

But doesn't that sound like a man's defense when he is told to lay off
the sexually oriented jokes that may be offensive to women?  He says
he is not doing it maliciously or with political intent.  Still,
feminists generally agree that he should stop.  If you do not believe
or agree with the man's defense should you do the same with the
woman's defense?  Is this a fair analogy?

-=] Steve [=-     SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU




--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.