Snippet: A Burning Sensation

[Stella_Omega]

For one thing it means that I won't punch a woman's lights out when she says something that a man deserves to lose teeth for. I won't take it lying down, but I won't go postal on her. There are many other less dramatic examples. I don't treat all the kids the same because they all have different needs. What one gets a full-blown dressing down for another only needs a stern look. Some need quiet praise because a standing ovation is embarrassing. Others don't even notice approval if doesn't come with a 19-gun salute.

Treating men and women the same means, to me at least, pushing everyone's head into the same shaped hole. I repeat, I hope to Hell not! Treating everyone with equal justice and equal respect means treating everyone like the individuals that they are.

Well, okay. Except that you just now classified all women as too weak to be punched, and all men as man enough to take it. How is that individual?

Also, let's look at an assumption embodied in that; a woman will use her words. What do you expect her to do, if you (or any other man) says something that you (or he) deserves to lose teeth for?

Some of the women I've been talking to say that the 'don't hit a girl" edict makes a very convenient excuse for guys in their martial arts classes to avoid getting their asses whupped.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, okay. Except that you just now classified all women as too weak to be punched, and all men as man enough to take it. How is that individual?

Also, let's look at an assumption embodied in that; a woman will use her words. What do you expect her to do, if you (or any other man) says something that you (or he) deserves to lose teeth for?

Some of the women I've been talking to say that the 'don't hit a girl" edict makes a very convenient excuse for guys in their martial arts classes to avoid getting their asses whupped.

I've taken martial arts. Skill level for skill level, the guy will always win simply because he's stronger. If a girl beats him, she has more skill, a clear case of having to be twice as good to be equal.

I suppose that if a 6', 200 lb woman bad mouthed me, I'd make the exception but they don't come by very often and like very large, strong men they tend not to be obnoxious anyway because they, too, don't want to hurt anyone.

And I, too, have an ugly tongue that I keep under control because I don't want to lose any teeth, either. Good manners are good manners, whoever is speaking. Part of the internet's problem is that certain folk can hide behind the monitor and say all those things they know damned well they don't dare say in public. This is a shame. In a way, I suppose, being a complete asshole all the time is treating men and women equally. I don't think that's what you want.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're the one that brought up bashing teeth in-- Not me!

Come up with another way women and men shouldn't be treated the same-- a good way.

...Besides holding doors open...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Don't expect a kindergarten boy to hold still in class.

There never was a boy who was hurt by spending another year at home before going to school.

Don't waste you time expecting boys to stay clustered around teacher and don't expect the girls to be on the far side of the playground. They won't.

You are continuing to hold to ideas of economic and social justice. With them I agree, but personal is different. Very few women want to be treated as men at home and vice versa. We aren't the same. All you have to do is look at the external physiological differences and ask yourself, "Can I, in all honesty, really believe that the underlying neurology isn't equally different?" I know, curves overlap and I'm married to a woman who is perfectly happy to tell you that her brain is 'way over on the male side of female. She's right. Giddy I didn't fall for, thank God. But we're not the same.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Don't expect a kindergarten boy to hold still in class.

There never was a boy who was hurt by spending another year at home before going to school.

Don't waste you time expecting boys to stay clustered around teacher and don't expect the girls to be on the far side of the playground. They won't.

You are continuing to hold to ideas of economic and social justice. With them I agree, but personal is different. Very few women want to be treated as men at home and vice versa. We aren't the same. All you have to do is look at the external physiological differences and ask yourself, "Can I, in all honesty, really believe that the underlying neurology isn't equally different?" I know, curves overlap and I'm married to a woman who is perfectly happy to tell you that her brain is 'way over on the male side of female. She's right. Giddy I didn't fall for, thank God. But we're not the same.

Little boys and girls grow up. I would expect men, for instance, to know better than little boys do, in oh so many ways... A man who still acts like a five-year-old? That would be a guy you'd want to punch in the face, pretty often.

I don't fall for "giddy" either. Sounds a bit infantile, to me-- if that's her primary descriptor. You know?

Oh, I forgot to ask-- how are men treated at home, that's different than how women are treated at home?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Little boys and girls grow up. I would expect men, for instance, to know better than little boys do, in oh so many ways... A man who still acts like a five-year-old? That would be a guy you'd want to punch in the face, pretty often.

I don't fall for "giddy" either. Sounds a bit infantile, to me-- if that's her primary descriptor. You know?

Oh, I forgot to ask-- how are men treated at home, that's different than how women are treated at home?

Can't answer for any family but my own. In an Italian household, which my mother married into and took to like a duck to water, Dad is in charge in the public world and mama rules the house.

We're a lot more even handed than that, most of the time. But, in my older brother mode, I do a lot of the housework, give backrubs, do the yardwork, cook ( I like to cook, it's my third favorite indoor sport, eating is second . . .) and presuming she isn't exhausted from the looong day's work, I get catered to more often than not. Personally, I think we're satisfying each other. She certainly brags that she's the most spoiled woman in town and I pretty much get whatever I want. Not all, of course, but most.

Other people's houses I cannot comment on.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Can't answer for any family but my own. In an Italian household, which my mother married into and took to like a duck to water, Dad is in charge in the public world and mama rules the house.

We're a lot more even handed than that, most of the time. But, in my older brother mode, I do a lot of the housework, give backrubs, do the yardwork, cook ( I like to cook, it's my third favorite indoor sport, eating is second . . .) and presuming she isn't exhausted from the looong day's work, I get catered to more often than not. Personally, I think we're satisfying each other. She certainly brags that she's the most spoiled woman in town and I pretty much get whatever I want. Not all, of course, but most.

Other people's houses I cannot comment on.

In other words, you and your wife treat each other the way you each wish to be treated. And you acknowledge that your preferences are individually developed, and not necessarily indicative of your sex. I mean-- men aren't supposed to do housework, according to the old rules.

In my house, I do most of the repairs-- plumbing, carpentry, fixing holes in walls and doors... but not all of the time. He's just as capable as I am, and we often work together. The Old Man helps the kids with homework more than I do. Nobody wants to do dishes!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nobody wants to do dishes!

Got that right! That's why I do the laundry.

 

[angela146]

I've tried several times to reply to this post, but it has been difficult to get my thoughts into writing.

Please consider this a work in progress. I'm probably going to need to revise and extend several times based on your collective feedback.

Womanly behaviour, as it was defined back then, was pretty useless in the workplace.

True. I'm speaking, not of the specific behavior that was "fashionable" in the 1950's, but of characteristics that are more inherently feminine and tend to exist across time and generations. (see below for examples)

The parameters of *Being* a woman have changed. But you know, Angela, it's still tough. Try restating your thoughts to address another area of social imbalance;

Yes, it's still tough, but we now have a generation (or more) of men who were raised in an era when women were generally recognized as being more equal than women were in the past.

The biases and gender-role limitations aren't as deeply ingrained as they were in the past.

I'll say this, however. It is still difficult for a black person to try to "fit in" in a white world. But that difficulty usually comes from trying to do things the way a white person would. It works much better to actually *be* black and not play by the white rules.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of black people out there to teach us how to be successful *and* be black at the same time. Most of the successful blacks of the previous generation got there by either emulating whites or forcing the workplace to change to accommodate them.

Kinda-sorta doesn't make sense, does it? Sounds kinda... patronising.

Yes, it does make sense (except that there *are* black folks out there mentoring the next generation).

Sure, it sounds patronizing - on the part of those who require everyone to conform to the (usually white male) cultural norms that they feel like enforcing.

If one were to ask a bunch of African-Americans what it is like for them to work in the business world, I think you would find that many of them feel like they have to leave much of their culture behind when they enter the corporate workplace. This is reflected in dialects, clothing, value systems, body language etc.

Instead of requiring people to "check their culture at the door," if we allowed and encouraged people to bring their culture with them, we would probably find that the workplace would be richer for it.

(And, yes, I think there is a "feminine culture" that many women "check at the door" when they enter the business world).

It's difficult for me to talk about race in the "black vs. white" dimension because I tend to experience it in the "brown vs. white" dimension.

Before I continue, I have to say that my experience of racism (or culturism or ethnicityism or whatever) is very watered down compared to the intensity of racism that African-Americans experience... but it is still there to some extent.

In fact, Stella, your paraphrase of "woman" to "black" actually felt like a mirror being held up, forcing me to look at myself and admit something to myself that I'm not particularly proud of.

Yes, I also leave much of my ethnic/cultural heritage behind, especially when I work with a new client company. It even goes deeper than that. When I married my husband, I made a conscious decision to drop my Italian/Spanish hyphenated last name and take my husband's ultra-white last name.

At the time, my rationalization was that my name was too long, too hard to spell, too "ethnic" etc. - but what lay beneath the surface was that I wanted to be able to "pass" as a more mainstream American white person.

I didn't want my Spanish last name to peg me as "one of them Mexican types" (despite the fact that my paternal grandfather is from Madrid, not Mexico).

Going beyond that, I also tend to dress more ethnically mainstream and wear my hair in a style that doesn't look Italian or Spanish - at least at first. Once I get to know people, if I feel safe, I then let some of my culture show through.

So, instead of saying "black", if I were to substitute "brown" or "Spanish" or "Italian", that paragraph would fit my situation. The difference is that it's a lot harder for me to be Spanish or Italian in a corporate setting. It's much easier to be a woman.

On the other hand, it's also easier for me to tone down (but not completely hide) my ethnicity than it would be to try to tone down my gender.

Now, to the examples of ways of "being a woman" and "doing things in ways that are inherently feminine":

I tend to be less aggressive when I'm trying to persuade. Instead, I tend to persuade by encouraging (showing people what they are capable of rather than telling them what they have to do).

I'm a lot more accepting of mid-process failure, more focused on the emotional perception of problems rather than ferreting out what's wrong and holding someone responsible.

I see a lot of women trying to be "harder" or "tougher" - climbing the corporate hierarchy through competition. I tend to take the opposite approach, being more "touchy/feely" and staying outside the hierarchy.

At the same time, I'm not submissive (in my professional life). I take orders from no one. I often get things done through a form of seduction. I'm not seducing them with sex, I'm seducing them with economic rewards, trading favors (put my project first and I'll owe you one), and relationship-building.

I do a lot of emotional rewarding so that people want to do things for me. For example, bringing a case of Guinness to a meeting with subcontractors.

Even from an appearance standpoint, I wear more color and more feminine color than most executive women. I also tend to wear skirts and tailored outfits more often than other women. It's not that I dress provocatively, it's more that I don't try to look masculine.

I don't feel that I've done a very good job of describing this, but I'm going to post it now rather than stew over it.

(Note: the issue of changing my name when I got married is more complex than I stated here. In particular, I wanted to jettison my parents' names and get them out of my life).

 

[angela146]

Boy, Stella's comment about race is bringing back some memories...

Back in college, before I was married, I was applying for something - a scholarship program I think.

I filled out the application and took it to the financial aid office or wherever. When I handed it to the administrator, she looked it over and said something like "Oh, you forgot to check the 'Hispanic' box" and started to check the box.

I stopped her and said, "No, I left it blank intentionally."

She looked at me and said, "All you need is a Spanish surname, and you're obviously at least part Hispanic..."

I remember feeling exasperated at the time, having wrestled with the question when I filled it out. "My grandfather was from Spain, not Mexico or Puerto Rico."

She said, "That doesn't matter, dear, and it might mean the difference between getting accepted or not."

All I could think of was that I would be cheating if I "checked the box". It was kind of like parking in a handicapped spot - but more than that. I didn't want to be put in the same category as the poor disadvantaged "brown people", even though I'm technically one of "them".

That's kind of what I mean by feeling ashamed. It's a double-whammy of racism. First, that I'm denying my heritage and second that I somehow feel like I'm soiling myself. That I'm "white" and I don't belong in the "colored" line.

And yet, I didn't check the "Caucasian" box either.

I wonder how many times people have "corrected" a form I filled out without telling me. I wonder how many times I've gotten the benefit of affirmative action without realizing it.

It's a lot easier with my husband's last name. When people don't see my father's name, they don't think "Hispanic", because I look more Italian than Spanish.

Thinking about it some more, I've gotten used to checking the "White/Caucasian not Hispanic" box and not getting hassled. You see, my husband's race is community property in our marriage. I don't have a Spanish surname anymore. (Yeah, that's the ticket! I'm white 'cuz I married a white guy!)

But there's nothing I can do about the "female" box.

 

[angela146]

OK, here's one that really lit me up.

We were on a cruise to the Caribbean.

The first day, there was a mandatory lifeboat drill. We had to report to our assigned escape point and line up with our life-vests on.

They had the women and children in a separate line, closer to the lifeboats than the men. Yes, dear ladies, "women and children in the lifeboats first".

Their plan was to actually split up every married couple on the whole fucking ship!

There were at least a half dozen women (none with children) who refused to get in the women's line (myself included, obviously).

Sure, it wasn't the Titanic. They had enough lifeboats for everyone (assuming the ship would have stayed afloat long enough).

But they still weren't going to put husbands and wives in the same lifeboats!

Grrrrr!

 

[freshface]

Angela, you neatly sum up the problems that I have with both affirmative action and gender preference. It's so very confining to be told that I can't or must do things based on factors that I can't control. I'd much rather be judged on things that I can control. That's one of the things that I like about forums such as this. Here I'm judged on my words alone.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Angela, you neatly sum up the problems that I have with both affirmative action and gender preference. It's so very confining to be told that I can't or must do things based on factors that I can't control. I'd much rather be judged on things that I can control. That's one of the things that I like about forums such as this. Here I'm judged on my words alone.

Absolutely on words alone! The glory and the problem of the internet is that everyone else only knows what you put on the page. Very few of us ever show our faces, almost none of us use our real names and I don't think that there are more than a half dozen of us who let people know even what state we're from, let alone what town. Yet we form a community that is comfortable discussing matters of great intimacy, of great personal importance and of deep concern.

" . . . on my words alone." Freshface, when you get to a thousand posts, and it doesn't really take very long, you would do well to use that as the caption under your avatar. Te saludo, cara mia!

 

[freshface]

Absolutely on words alone! The glory and the problem of the internet is that everyone else only knows what you put on the page. Very few of us ever show our faces, almost none of us use our real names and I don't think that there are more than a half dozen of us who let people know even what state we're from, let alone what town. Yet we form a community that is comfortable discussing matters of great intimacy, of great personal importance and of deep concern.

" . . . on my words alone." Freshface, when you get to a thousand posts, and it doesn't really take very long, you would do well to use that as the caption under your avatar. Te saludo, cara mia!

Awww...Thanks. I haven't been here for very long, but I already know that you match your AV. People like you make this a very welcoming forum.

 

[angela146]

Thanks Fresh and volup... Hopefully Stella will see my latest posts and reply again. I like her take on these kinds of issues. She's very good at making me think - and I like to think.

---

I re-read my post about Affirmative Action and I want to clarify something.

When I said, That's kind of what I mean by feeling ashamed. It's a double-whammy of racism. First, that I'm denying my heritage and second that I somehow feel like I'm soiling myself. That I'm "white" and I don't belong in the "colored" line.

I should have added, "... It's my own racism that I'm most troubled by. There is a gnawing sense of not wanting to be 'mistaken' for 'one of those people'."

That isn't how I feel about sexism. I most definitely want to be recognized as a woman, but I don't want to given a special coupon to get in the front of the line because I'm a woman. There are enough innate advantages to being female that I don't feel the need for special treatment cuz I'm a girl.

In that regard, I would cite the example of Annie Duke, the professional poker player. She doesn't play in "Ladies" tournaments and views them with disdain. She can afford to, being one of only two women ever to make the final table at the WSOP (and she was nine-months pregnant at the time).

Of all the sports in the world, poker would seem like the one least likely to need special treatment for women. In fact, the ladies tournaments are really designed to get more women involved in playing poker. So, in that regard, I'm OK with them, but I wouldn't want to play in one.

BTW: the fact that there have only been two women at a WSOP final table is mostly due to the fact that there are very few women who play poker. It's not extra-difficult for women, it's just that there are so few of us who play that none have filtered up to the top yet.

I've played poker in poker rooms, private tournaments, casinos etc. and I do OK (which is to say that I play break-even poker and enjoy the game). At the poker table, I show even more of my "feminine side" than I do at work.

That is a place where being a woman *really* has its advantages. There are usually 1-3 women at most (out of 10 players) at a poker table (including me but excluding the dealer).

I often wear low-cut or button-down tops with one too many buttons open, along with tasteful but dangley earrings, a necklace and my hair and makeup looking good. Of course, there is a fine line between looking good and looking like a hooker, but I can go right up to the line and sometimes even cross it a little because it's pretty obvious that I'm there to play cards. (The stacks of red chips in front of me are a dead giveaway).

It is incredibly easy to distract several men at the table by smiling at them and not chiding them for staring at my cleavage. Of course, the more serious poker players are unaffected (or less affected) but that's fine. I can make enough money off of the guys (and occasional gals) who aren't thinking about the cards.

As for safety, a casino or poker-room is probably the safest place to be when dressing provocatively. There are security cameras everywhere and big, strong bouncer-types close by at all times.

In a poker-room, I can flirt, tease, and do many of the things that would be ridiculously unprofessional in a business setting, and not have to worry about being sued for sexual harassment.

BTW: one weakness that I have seen among almost all women who play poker (including Annie Duke) is that they are too aggressive - more aggressive than men are. I'm convinced that it's a matter of overcompensating and trying to show that they can play with the big boys.

That kind of aggression is easy to take advantage of, especially when it's so predictable. It's much more effective for a woman to back off of what she thinks she needs to do to "fit in" and, instead, be "selectively" aggressive.

It's not that women shouldn't be aggressive at a poker table. It's just that no one should ever be *consistently* aggressive (or consistently anything for that matter).

Sorry, I got off on a tangent again.

Oh well...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Angela, these tangents are great!

I've read and i can't do much answering yet, I'm trying to do visual work...

The issue of racism-- and indeed, racism within the feminist movement is... Well, it's alive and kicking let me tell you! I'll give you links later, if you want to explore that.

More later, guys

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The issue of racism-- and indeed, racism within the feminist movement is... Well, it's alive and kicking let me tell you! I'll give you links later, if you want to explore that.

And don't forget classism within the civil rights movement. It, too, is alive and well. I was astonished 30 years ago when I read Certain People about the class struggles within the Afro-American population and to this day can see it at work.

Not that it isn't equally rife among whites, of course.