>>On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Wood Lee wrote: >> >>> It is my believe that cases where women are consciously overlooked or >>> bypassed are the exception. > Wood's reply to Jayne's reply to Wood >I say this because I feel it's mostly when power is involved that >the players become vicious. Unfortunately, it is in such cases that >the impact to the victim is probably the greatest, like not getting >a deserved promotion. > >However, I feel the more mundane, day-to-day occurences which could >be numerous and unconcious tend to be overlooked, snip so that may be things can become easier >to deal with when power becomes involved. (More on this below.) > >Cases where power is involved,... are probably >still the exception when compared with daily occurences (such as >`friendly' exchanges between colleagues) Ah, I think I gleam Wood's problem. he obviously does not understand power relations. Any interaction between two people where one person has more power whether they exercise it or not, is a power relationship. Therefore all interactions at this time between men and womyn are power relationships. If you cannot understand this then tell me and I'll explain further. There is no such thing as 'those little daily occurences' where power is not involved. Later in your post you indicate that you believe affirmative action to be a bad thing. For whom Wood? For the boys. By having legislation that forces men to hire womyn womyn then get some power. This directly addresses the power relationship. It does not equalise it, but without affirmative action less womyn would get opportunities. But perhaps you're willing to sacrifice this Wood? I am not willing to sacrifice womyn in the fight. We have surely sacrificed enough. >.. this is what gets the work done! And what I meant by helping your >male colleagues along. ... You have to be creative and >create/look for opportunities, be able to adapt like you do to take >advantage of opportunities. In the long run, the bridge building >will result in a different climate, one which may be more receptive >to different styles. > having to bend over backwards to improve >things. It's a matter of whether you want to fight fruitless battles >butting heads, or you want to do real work. the real work is hard and >tiring, but I believe it's the >best way to get results, as slow as they may come by. So, Wood, you would like us to 'help our male colleagues along' and 'bend over backwards to improve things'. Wood, it is not our job to help the boys understand some fundamental things about humanity. What we need to do is to enlighten our sisters to stop doing everything for men. To attempt to improve their self esteem and self efficacy so that they can stand up to men. To attempt to reverse the results of our sexist upbringing that told us we were not as important as men etc etc. Wood, if you are at all interested in equality then you and other men like yourself have the job of educating other men. It's about time men pulled their weight and took responsibility for their own actions. Just an anecdote for you. One of my male friends once told me he would never force himself on a woman. He wanted me to thank him for this- give him a medal!! I have since noticed this attitude in other men. And also the to do with men who profess to have some ideology of equal opportunity. I will not give you a medal for being a decent human being. I expect that anyway. Is this too much to want to take for granted? >.. unfortunately, this is traditionally how the power game has been played >and it may not change easily. Power corrupts. Things don't work the >same way when power is involved. >Wood As I said Wood, power is always involved. Respectfully, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries, but you imprison those who employ it privately." Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
