Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I never questioned this because I always thought the answer was
    inherent in the file. Some topics everyone agrees on, and the
    continuance of the topic occurs when someone offers more facts or an
    update. Lots of people read it, most agree, few write in.
    
    The other topics have lots of different opinions. Sometimes clashing,
    sometimes lighthearted. And these get lots of entries, sometimes to the
    point when you don't need to read all of them to get the flavor, but
    only to share in the exchange.
    
    I don't think anyone sees topics like the Mommy Track as being less
    important. But, we can do more about that outside the file than inside.

    
    i don't know whether or not this is cynical, but my guess is that
    the issues raised in the basenote are in general 'tougher' than
    things like rape. noone is in favor of rape, though folk will
    quibble about definitions and what not, and usually to men it's
    all kind of abstract anyway. most folk seem to be in favor of 
    'equal pay for equal work'. but it is most certainly not abstract 
    and it effects the wallet directly (perhaps especially men's
    wallets). so the short answer is: these things tend to be discussed 
    less because they are more difficult and challenging.
     

 re .2
    
    Do you think they are really that much more challenging than, say,
    overcoming prejudice at rape trials, or more challenging than
    overcoming the misgynistic attitudes of oh, say, the guy down the
    street?
    
    I'm personally alittle surprised at how hard this seems to be for
    people to address/challenge/face.  Perhaps I'm naive (Gawd knows
    I don't think things are as bad as you would sometimes get from
    this notesfile!).  
    
    I won't deny that equality in the workplace and thus gaining a well
    secured niche in the Respect principle is hard or challenging or
    isn't there yet.  But I would think this would be the key start
    to overcoming many of the other problems we discuss (and I'm guilty
    of it too at times) so frequently and verbosely.  
    
    Further comments?
    
    

    .0,
    What an interesting observation!  I think there's more than one 
    perspective you can take on this.
    
    The least "charitable" one is that the issues people want to discuss
    are the <hot>, emotional, big-issue ones, rather than the cold
    financial and business power-structure ones.  Sort of "A Current
    Affair"-type noting.  This may be a factor--I know I'm more interested
    in personalities and language than finance and power.
    
    Another one could be level of personal interest in the topic.  It seems
    to me that the majority of people writing to this file are direct
    contributors, not necessarily management types.  We have a lot of
    engineers, secretaries, and writers here -- most higher-level managers,
    if they are around, seem to be read-only.  It could be that
    "glass-ceiling" type stuff is mostly interesting to people who have
    REACHED the glass ceiling, or are close to it.  Pay discussions are
    hard to deal with in a Digital notesfile, since officially (I think) we
    are not supposed to talk about our salaries.  Comparing salaries
    privately with co-workers is a no-no, and doing it publicly in NOTES
    would be...inadvisable.  I have NO IDEA if my salary is skewed at all,
    let alone by gender or by profession or by ??, because I don't know
    what other people in my group are making.  (However, I could certainly
    talk about other jobs before DEC...hmm!)
    
    Basically both perspectives offered above share one thing in common: 
    interest in personal relationships/people/emotion/self rather than
    interest in redesigning financial/power structures.  Maybe we're
    unwilling to tackle the "harder," more "important" problems; but maybe
    we're interested in changing what problems are considered "important."
    
    Pam

I'd agree with both replies...

With things like rape, there is discussion to be done in defining in, it
convincing the unconvinced (who probably aren't reading this file anyway)
that certain kinds of rape can validly be called rape (date rape, etc.),
etc.  With things like misogyny, we actually have misogynists in our 
midsts (who me?  She' can't be talking about *me*!  :-) and again, we have
to define it, to point it out, etc.

There isn't much discussion to be done about the glass cieling.  It is a 
practical, not an emotional, problem.  What is there to say about the Glass
ceiling?  I don't have anything to say about it.  It's there.  I know it's
there.  I know it's bad.  But I don't know why it's there or what to do 
about it, so what could I possibly add to a string on that subject?

Basically, most of the "lime-light subjects" generate lots of debate.  
Most of the nastier problems facing women are obvious (in their existence,
not in their solution.)  If the problem is obvious and the solution unknown, 
what is there to debate?

I think you are wrong that "emotional-chargedness" is not the *real* reason
certain issues get more action in here than others.  I think that is a *big*
part of it.

D!

    I'll subscribe to the notion that there are some issues which many
    people agree on.  These are stated factually, there may be some initial
    flurry of response, and then it is left because there really IS nothing
    to discuss.  Often these problems are monumentally huge (like the glass
    ceiling, or wage discrepancy) - and there is little that can be done by
    individual people to change the problem.  I think this is why my
    basenote "X's in a room of O's" (topic 938) got so little response. 
    What is there to discuss?  Perhaps experiences, perhaps offer support. 
    Some of the time volume here mounts up not in notes of support or 
    experience so much as in notes of disagreement, defense, or persuasion.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re. 7 (Mike)
    
    At the risk of sounding cynical Mike, Yah, the glass ceiling probably
    wouldn't be something that would affect you directly.  :)
                                              
    re .4  (foop shootin' Smith)
    
     I am certainly not advocating talking about your salaries
    here.  I think we can summarize, or discuss based on studies that
    have been done. Wish I had some numbers right here.
    
    re. D!  Well, rape is "there" too.  We certainly have some ideas
    why THAT happens, but I don't think anyone can come up with the
    one definitive reason it happens either.  But we're very busy trying
    to argue over how to solve it.  
    
    I'm not sure how to put what I think into "good" words -- this problem,
    as I see it, isn't confined to this notesfile.  It's nationwide.
    It seems that many are blase about issues which are very important,
    but not very sensationalistic.  So they continue to go on relatively
    unaddressed, unexplored, un-discussed, while other issues that could
    be directly affected by a change in say, more women in socially
    respected, "powerful" positions could help alleviate the more
    sensationalistic issues such as rape.  If there were many more women
    in high-ranking law-related positions, do you think the justice
    system would be so lenient towards issues of rape, marital rape,
    date rape, etc?  If there were more women in high government offices,
    wouldn't you expect, by the nature of the beast, for laws affecting
    women most directly to be different (ie, ERA, abortion rights/limits,
    etc.?)   
    
    But women, as far as we've progressed, still mostly can't get there
    from here.  We get stereotyped (still) into piddly office work (of
    course, if you've longed to become a secretary, piddly might not
    be the word you'd choose), nurses (instead of mostly doctors),
    lower-level government work, instead of governors, senators,
    congressmen (people, whatever), etc.  Am I being more clear?
    
    But a general glance around the immediate society (read: the U.S.)
    shows that people questing for women's rights and equality seem
    to pay MORE attention to things which are bad, newsworthy, violent,
    etc.  It's like the issues of paying more attention to say, the
    violent crime ratio among poor people vs. middle class people instead
    of paying attention to the fact that those people are poor.  If
    middle class people suffer less crime, then it would seem *more*
    worthy to get poor people changed to middle class people.  If you
    remove the violence, which is BAD, you still have a bunch of poor
    people, which is *still* BAD.
    
    To try and make my analogy (there's that word again!) apply more
    to this file, I'll try this:
    
    Rape, as we know, is an inequality act -- the quest to prove one's
    self better than the victim, superior if you will.  We also know
    that women, as a whole, do NOT have equality as we'd like it in
    all things (stil!l!!  This frosts me, but that's a different topic).
    
    We can certainly bring rape to light, and possibly make the magic
    wand to rid our world of it (not 100% likely, but let's say through
    all this rape incidences lessen because, oh, the punishment finally
    fits the crime).  Okie, we've helped cut down rape, which is Good.
    But all the other things women are inequal in is still around --
    which is BAD.  But if women were seen in all eyes (this includes
    women who help - and there are some - keep the social inequality
    around) as equals, if we had women where they could also make the
    rules, then the issue of rape wouldn't be as bad as it is today,
    PLUS women would have gained ground in the race to equality.
    
    Does that make any sense?
    
    This is why I wonder why such issues as equal pay, or just getting
    equal jobs (which is not so easy as it would seem else there'd be
    more women in higher positions), or even something as broad as the
    ERA (unisex bathrooms aside) doesn't gain as much attention or
    discussion as other BAD things.  Like Mike said, they are not "primary
    concerns".  Why?  Shouldn't they be?  To those of us faced with
    the roadblocks, anyway?  Shouldn't they be given more than "limited
    thought"?  Shouldn't we have MORE knowledge of them?  
    
    I've rambled.  But hopefully helped clarify my position.  
    
    ---kim

    Kim,
    
    You're asking a question "WHY do we discuss topics like rape that chain
    us but not topics that may empower us like how to solve wage inequities
    and glass ceilings." You already seem to have an answer you're happy
    with:  "because they're not sensationalistic enough topics."   So,
    basically, you ascribe to the first theory in my note .4, which is
    fine.  
    
    I think what you are REALLY interested in finding out is how can we
    CHANGE this focus?  Am I on target?  I agree with you that these issues
    are vital to changing women's position in society.  I am just not sure
    that it's that easy to write about what to do about those issues,
    whereas it's "easier" to write about rape if you have PERSONAL
    experience of rape or the fear of rape.  And writing about topics like
    rape may be useful not to SOLVE the problem, but to work through the
    feelings and to educate.
    
    I personally think that one way to CHANGE this is to realize that
    different people are motivated by different WHYs.  For instance,
    emotional vs. financial issues may be a matter of sensationalism.  They
    may be a matter of having a personal stake.  They may be a matter of
    relative knowledge about the subject and how it operates.  Or...
    
    If it's sensationalism, there is nothing to be done.  Give up.
    If it's lack of knowledge, the answer is to write notes that provide
      information.  Replying to such notes is sometimes hard, though,
      unless you have additional information.  Often, the base note says
      it all.
    If it is personal stake, the answer is to write notes that illustrate
      how we are all affected by something, and to offer ideas that show
      how we can take action individually and collectively.  Right now I
      don't have any idea what I can do -- as a lone technical writer --
      to affect the glass ceiling effect one way or another.  Any ideas?
    
    I guess what I was really trying to say in .4 was not "I don't want to
    talk about my salary."  I was trying to say that "without information,
    power, or personal knowledge of a subject, it's hard to come up with
    the ultimate well-reasoned note of how to approach solving a complex
    problem."  Do you have ideas of how to change THIS aspect of the
    problem?
    
    Pam

    As a mother of young children, I have seen a few notes posted that have
    to deal with job-sharing and part-time work, on site daycare, etc. I 
    think I would get a more sympathetic ear in SOAPBOX! (not really)
    
    Many of the readers here are concerned with other things. Many are
    single, engineers. Very Career oriented.
    
    Kate
     
    
    
     

    Kate,

	You forgot the single, engineer, mother, who is career oriented.

	There are quite a few in this conference (as well as in the world).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Child care is not a woman's issue
			it is a human issue.

    
>>			Child care is not a woman's issue
>>			it is a human issue.
                                ^^^^^
  
    
    Thanks, Peggy, for saying that.  Maybe we are getting somewhere
    at last.....                     
    
   ---kim 

    Peggy, Kim,
    
    Regarding the last 2:
    
    Because childcare issues affect all and not just women, does that mean
    it doesn't get much attention here?  Do part-time work, and job sharing
    get blown off too because they are human issues?
    
    As a mother, I have felt deserted by the women's movement. I feel as
    though the fast-track is the only track. By being given certain po-
    licies, a mother's job/work life can be most productive but saying
    "You can do it all", is a bit unrealistic. Something's got to give.
    Superwoman lives only in the comics.
    
    Kate
     
    
    
    
    
    
     

    Kate, I think you're right...in part.  The women's movement *has* come
    out with that tired bs about the fast track being everything, and women
    with kids *have* gotten little sympathy if their particular situation
    didn't allow them to be Wonder Woman.
    
    But it's an arm of the women's movement that's pushed FTE counting thru
    here at DEC so that part-time work is possible, and that keeps pushing
    for support for daycare.  "The women's movement" isn't just made up of
    the childless, the careerists, and the wealthy...though it often looks
    that way.
    
    I think what you're probably hearing is a sort of panic.  We know how
    fragile our gains are and how subject to constant erosion (the current
    cases before the Supreme Court being in point), and this nagging fear
    whispers in our ears that if we can't do *everything*, then the only
    things we'll be allowed to do are the baby-factory bits because that's
    what society continues to demand of us.  "Yes you can have a job, dear,
    but only if you keep up with the housework".  Single moms like you are
    and I was usually have no choice...we do what we must, not what we might
    otherwise want.
    
    The flaw isn't so much with the women's movement, I'm convinced, it's
    with the social structure that continues to make traditional demands in
    a time when they're utterly unrealistic.
    
    							=maggie

    read -.2
    
    If I read your note correctly, yes, I think you have a point.  There
    isn't much discussion on part time work, (beneficial or not), nor
    much of anything relating to employment, working when you have
    children, etc.  By "much", I mean near the time and effort spent
    on talking about boycotting Idaho potatoes (  ;), abortion, sexism,
    etc...
    
    Maybe the reason, the big reason, is that there's the old "So much
    to do, so little time".  Sometime I think big problem such as equal
    rights and other major social issues are treated a brick wall that
    everyone wants/expects all the bricks to be knocked out of it NOW,
    instead of a few bricks at a time.  
    
    I'm really unclear on what answers exist here.
    
    ---kim

    Maggie,Kim,
    
    Family is what holds this nation together. Family is as important as
    abortion rights. It is as important as equal pay for equal work. 
    It is as important, although not as sensational, as rape victims rights
    or sexism in the workplace. Motherhood is not changing sh*t diapers. 
    I mean, hell, most kids are trained by 3 years old!!
    Not all mothers, single or otherwise, live by the 1950's rule books.
    We are progressive. We just need to put our families on track first.
    We can work. We can raise our families too. But in the final analysis,
    when it comes to job-sharing, part-time work and on-site daycare it
    would be nice to get some support from my fellow Womannoters.
    
    When the women's movement pushes mothers out the door it does a great
    disservice to all women. This may not be the attempt but it is the
    perception sometimes.
    
    Kate
    

    um, Kate, did you misread me or am I misreading you?  It sounds to me
    as though you believe I either don't know or don't care where you're at
    as a single working mother.  I hope it's me misreading you!
    
    							=maggie

    =maggie,
    
    I read it as she was adressing us (I think I was the right Kim),
    and adding her thoughts.  
    
    The Thanks for your Input seems to help that idea...
    
    ---kim

    .16 > When the women's movement pushes mothers out the door it does
    .16 > a great disservice to all women. This may not be the attempt but it is
    .16 > the perception sometimes.
    
    That's a very different perspective from mine.  It is my perception
    that the wo/man's liberation movement has more _opened_ the door, so
    that women can venture out, and men can come in, and both can circulate
    in both directions, if they choose.  And it hasn't seemed to me that
    Womannoters are hostile to family issues, or over-focussed on careers.
    I would also assert that children, single-adult households, daycare,
    and the like, are not Woman's issues, but Parent issues; at least they
    sure are for me.  So it seems to me appropriate that the lengthier
    discussions on them are generally in Parenting, rather than here.  But
    it seems that we've got lots of parents (and grandparents) of many
    different flavors here, too, and that discussions involving parenting
    issues, or how parenting issues affect other issues, are an important
    part of this file.
    
    			- Bruce

    Maggie,
    No. I wasn't talking about you personally. I was just thanking you
    and Kim for your input.
    
    Bruce,
    It's not that the Women's movement is hostile toward parenting issues
    but rather disinterested. Also, regarding parenting issues; of course
    they are for men and women but in this liberated, enlightened day and
    age, the vast majority of children of broken homes still live with 
    Dear-Old-Mom. The majority of household and child rearing responsibil-
    ities still lie squarely on the shoulders of Dear-Old-Mom. Given the
    ability to do jobsharing, I would bet the interested people would be
    about 80% female. This is from the 100 or so people I have talked to.
    
    Kate