Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I will reply to your note on sexism.  Of course our conscious and
    busconcious knows the difference... are you implying that we are equal?
    we are NOT, and have never been.  Men and women are different and have
    been treated as such since creation... we are individuals and
    individually unique, each one of us is different from next in
    everything, character, height, weight, color, shape, etc, etc, etc. and
    have to be treated also uniquelly, not as a "flock" a 'bunch" or
    whatever you want to call it of human "things"... I would not like to
    be treated so generally... I am myself, a unique human being, female
    gender, and proud of it. (I don't want to be treated as a man, I love
    being a woman, and don't feel inferior to the best man around, or superior
    either, just equal). I know that some won't agree with me, they don't
    have to, the world is so nice thanks to the diversity of people on it,
    men, women, boys and girls... We ALL, make this world an interesting
    place to live in! and thanks God, for diversity!
    

    re .1, don't you want to be treated as an individual (according to your
    own abilities and interests) first, and as a woman, second?  You don't
    want someone to just *expect* you to have a certain set of abilities
    and interests based entirely on the fact that you're a woman, do you?
    
    Lorna
    

    re. to .2.
    I don't care very much what someone *expectations* have regarding
    women, I care of my own expectations and if someone *expects* the same
    that I expect of my own self thats fine with me, but I won't loose my
    sleep over that.  I love people, good and less good, because those less
    good make the first so much better... again, good for diversity!
    

    re .3, well, I think the point is that many women and men have felt
    that their lives have been constricted because of the expectations
    others have placed on them because of their sex.
    
    Lorna
    

	This is a fascinating topic...I hope it gets as many replies
as it merits (that would be quite a few).

	Can we discuss subconscious sexism fully without considering its
counterpart: the subconscious evaluation that says this behavior is sexist.

	My model of the relationship between the subconscious and conscious
is somewhat cybernetic. The conscious 'seeds' the subconscious and to a
degree goal directs it. Its in my conscious mind that I'll define sexism
to begin with and from there the subconscious becomes somewhat goal directed
within the context of evaluating sexism. It will move me toward responses 
even before my conscious mind has an awareness.

	As an example a more complex activity...

	My conscious mind worked out driving a car before my subconscious
took over; probably at that point where a whole myriad of conditioned
responses around driving a car took over. Yesterday I was driving home
and thinking about a project I'm working on. A child on a bike came from an
angle into my driving path....my foot hit the brake...then my conscious
mind registered what happened. My sub-conscious somehow superseded the
current programming in my conscious mind.There is some efficiency in this;
had I needed to register in my conscious mind what was happening I may
have struck the child.

	I'm looking at this from the other side somewhat. Subconscious
sexism is very dependent on the evaluators definition. This definition
started in that evaluators conscious mind and itself probably is driven
behavior wise subconsciously.

	In order to discuss subconscious sexism it might help to consider
its subconscious evaluation. There is a dependency?

MAC		
	

    re .0:
    
    Is it subconscious, or unconscious?
    
    To me, subconscious implies something "below" the rational, something
    almost instinctive.  Unconscious, on the other hand, means something
    so familiar it doesn't reach the "conscious" part of our thoughts.
    
    What's the difference?  Well if it's subconscious, then it might very
    well be impossible to change, whereas, if it's simply unconscious, then
    that means it's based on a pattern that was learned -- and patterns can
    be unlearned, and new patterns can be taught.
    
    My feeling are: it's unconscious, and by careful, consistent, patient
    teaching, we can educate each other, and the children of the world.
    
    					andrew

    I think trying to separate unconscious from subconscious is a
    futile, and perhaps incorrect, exercise.  Perhaps this is because
    I've been taught that humans have very few `hard-wired' responses,
    (We're not reptiles, y'know!) and that the subconscious can be
    retrained (coaxed, teased, humored) into a different set of behavior
    and attitudes.
    
    I can do things with my subconscious, for example.  Mostly, I
    indulge her, like now:
    
    Readers, I'd like you to meet my subconscious, Zharis.  (That isn't
    exactly what she calls herself, but it's close enough for us.)
    She is enormously creative, vastly more intelligent than I, and is
    monstrously egotistical.  I find I sometimes have to introduce her
    to new people, so that she will stop tangling my tongue (in person)
    or stop scrambling my fingers (in typing), hence this paragraph.
    I can't persuade her to change her sense of humor, which, as befits
    a subconscious, is very primitive.  (Fortunately, we both like puns.)
    However, once I figure out that a problem which I had thought of
    as *my* problem is actually *our* problem, I can generally reach
    an accommodation with her.
    
    In fact, I've just realized there's something we should work on....
    
    						Ann B.

I wonder if, in terms of internalized sexism, if subconsciuos is just
that they we are not yet aware of.

john

    Oh, sure, I think so.  Subconsciouses are like vampires:  Turn the
    light of day on their problem, and they shrivel up and turn to dust.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .7 Ann,

         Although we are not 'hard-wired', we do develop paths through our
    neurons which tend to be the path most taken for a given stimuli.  At
    least this is what I learned in a recent course which dealt with the
    brain.  According to the course developer, when we repeat an action or
    response, the neural path gets easier and easier to follow, and becomes
    the path of least resistance so to say.  This is his explanation for
    habits.

    Tony

    I heard that these paths were called creoids (or crinoids, or something
    ;).....and that as they grew more and more comfortable for us to
    follow, we think less and less about doing them (like tying our shoes,
    or driving home from work, or brushing our teeth).  I would assume we
    may also have mental creoids (or whatever they are, the teacher we had 
    was never clear on the spelling) - where we fall into patterns of
    response and interaction and assumption - and it takes a good deal of
    effort not only to NOTICE these patterns, but to actually go about
    trying to CHANGE them...
    
    I know I have some sexist tendencies (as part of my burden of
    internalized misogyny), and tend to make assumptions about people or
    label books by their covers to some degree - but I'm working on it.
    
    -Jody

    Jody, thanks for a further explanation.
    
    The course I took gave us a method for changing our habits or familiar
    behaviors.  First one needs to recognize the pattern.  Then when one
    has done that one may visualize what one would have done instead of the
    patterned response/action.  It was very important not to dwell on the
    patterned response.  Being angry at one's self for making a 'mistake'
    simply reinforced the mistake instead of setting up a new path.  Its
    also important for one to praise one's self for identifying the pattern
    and visualizing or taking new actions.
    
    Tony

    One of the most difficult things about swaying subconscious sexist
    tendencies is that there is seldom a reward (except for a feeling of
    well-being, if you are truly invested in it).  
    
    I mean, for centuries, men have run the world.  By looking at things
    differently, perhaps they might lose some of their power because they
    would SEE the injustices and might FEEL some guilt or something at
    having subjugated half the species.  
    
    I mean, I've been exercizing my awareness lately as to how I see other
    people and any conclusions I jump to based on how they look...
    
    When I look at a woman who is dressed in slinky, sexy clothing at work
    and has long, slender legs and big fluffy hair often the first word
    that leaps unbidden to my mind is "bubblehead".  THIS is sexist.  I
    admit it!  I am imperfect!  This is indeed a holdover from spending 10
    years in nearly-all-male schools.  But it also springs, to some degree,
    from jealousy - I'm sure.  So I am partially invested in feeling
    superior to this gorgeous woman because I would naturally feel inferior
    if the only comparison between us were that of looks.  Perhaps it made
    me feel better earlier in life to think that all beautiful women were
    dumb because I was smart and was not beautiful - and that way I could
    feel okay about being myself in the face of the myriad lovely women
    roaming the planet...
    
    But today is a different day.  And I am interested in rooting out the
    minor injustices I do on a daily basis.  I am interested in opening my
    mind to any kind of people, and the opportunities of knowing them.
    
    I think in order to question your beliefs/structures/creoids, you have
    to divest yourself of the value they hold for you, and question WHY you
    began to believe what you believe (even if it's just because "everyone
    else believed it" - that's absolutely valid in forming judgemenets and
    opinions).  Also question what you GET out of believing/thinking what
    you do - is there a WIN in it for you - even if that win is the removal
    of any residual GUILT from your own unfairnesses.  Nobody said it would
    be easy!.  Question the foundation thought itself, and try to look at
    it from many points of view - yours - your sister's - your mother's -
    see what that person might think of YOU, not only if they just saw you
    or met you, but also if they knew what you were thinking.  Work through
    that.  Then practice thinking the resolved solution thought.
    
    "Hey.  I'll bet she reads books voraciously - just like I do."
    "Wow.  I wonder if she took advanced-placement calculus in high school."
    
    Feels strange at first - like it's not your own skin.  Trying on new
    attitudes seems pretty alien.  But if you can remove yourself from
    these attitudes - and try to value people's differences while not
    DEVALUING them BECAUSE of those differences - that's what it's all
    about.  Give them the same opportunity you give yourself....we're all
    in this together, after all.....
    
    -Jody

    RE: 13 JODY...
    
    	WHEW! LOTS OF GREAT STUFF PACKED IN THAT NOTE !
    
    MAC

    Jody,
    
    The way you look in a slinky dress now,  becareful! Even
    you could be a bubble head...
    
    hugs 
    
    Bonnie

>    It's a long-term problem (like, thousands of years) and it will take
>    a long-term effort (like, generations) to solve.  

Ann,

 RE all of .0  Well said!  

    Meigs

    G'day,
    
    Most reactions about which we, in general, do not have to think can be
    described as 'reflex'. Some are 'instinctive' such as 'fight or flight',
    others are learned. The learned ones, are learned because, whoever was
    explaining (in the broad sense) was giving us associative patterns.
    
    A reference elsewhere to a female called 'initial. initial. lastname' was
    expected to be a 'he' because we have learned by various associations
    that, on balance, females do not refer to themselves like this. Not
    that they cannot, merely that they do not. 
    
    In the car, the association, is that something in the way is to be
    avoided. We are taught that, as we are taught of the dire consequences
    should be fail to make the association. The driver here chose by
    association, that they should brake. On a recent advanced driver course
    that I did, we were taught how to avoid the accident by steering. Now
    my first association is the object in the way, and the steering away
    from it; then brakes.
    
    Now clearly associations can be amended. Anyone who has taken part in
    the Lew Tice "New Age Thinking" course understands this. (Whether they
    accept that, is another matter). Remember, 'Reality is the truth as we
    perceive it to be'. It may be arguably incorrect, it certainly may not
    be wrong.
    
    Why then should we be self reproachful because, through no fault of our
    own, we associate events and ideas with others that have been taught to
    us? AND more especially, reproachful of others who display this
    characteristic?
    
    The situation dictates what we should do about it. Frequently, some
    with a barrow to push will seize _every_ opportunity to push the
    barrow. Others, with perhaps a greater perception, choose to defer to a
    later time. The person going across the green light is certainly in the
    right, but choosing right then to argue with the Mack coming against
    the red is certainly incorrect. 
    
    Where am I going with this diatribe? I suppose I am saying is that
    whilst we should be self aware of our errors and can choose to change
    the association, we should choose to be tolerant, when the situation
    demands. Remember, it is our own faults that stops our
    partners/SOs/friends from having a better partner/SO/friend in us. 
    
    
    derek

    I think most everyone misunderstood my note is "Sexism is alive and
    well...".  The whole point of the reply was that I, a rationally
    radical (*8 feminist, while reading the Sexism is alive... note, and
    having all those subconcious things that we do right at the front of
    my brain, and with a name that is just a letter, STILL made the 
    assumption that Initial. Initial. Lastname was a male!  That's all.
    It was a comment on irony of the situation, and a little poke and
    laugh at myself!
    
    E

    G'day,
    
    ... and why not make the assumption? By association, even for your
    goodself, *most* people referred to by a single initial _will_be male..
    Its like when someone asks you your phone number - its much harder to
    recall than other peoples', because you do not ring yourself up..
    
    
    Still a little irony help remove the creases....;-)
    
    
    Derek
    

    I am not impressed by such "experiments".  I am of the opinion that
    this world is full of complex people and complex interactions that
    combine and influence each other in far too many ways for any of us
    ever to be SURE that what we see in people's reactions is truly the
    whole story.  Not a one of us has ever demonstrated the wisdom to
    convince me that they truly understand all of what drives another of
    us.  Consequently, when I see or hear of "experiments" carried out upon
    real world, imperfect people, (us noters) in imperfect, real world
    forums (like a notesfile), I turn in genuine anger to the
    "experimenter" and ask: who do you think you are?  What kind of
    conceited arrogance does it take to "experiment" upon your peers?
    
    When such experimenters have the wisdom to save the world, I'll  expect
    them to go off and do it.  Until then, the insufferable arrogance shows
    me just how far they truly are from that level.
    
    DougO

    re .20, well, that's life.  I guess you'll just have to learn to deal
    with it somehow.
    
    Lorna
    

    <--(.20)
    
    Eric, I see your point and agree with it at least in part.  I've been
    on the receiving end of that sort of behavior (here at DEC, in fact)
    when my suggestions in a meeting were ignored or actually dismissed as
    impractical and irresponsible...and then the very next week the
    selfsame suggestions, put forward by a man, were accepted and praised!  
    (btw, I might have thought I was going mad but for the fact that a male
    colleage who was in the room on both occasions recognised what was
    going on and commiserated with me)
    
    The reason why I say that I only agree in part, though, is that whereas
    the man who was praised for my suggestion and I had the same level of
    interest in having the suggestion accepted (favorable notice, a good
    review, more respect, etc), in the case you mention there's an obvious
    degree of presumptive self-interest on the man's part that was lacking
    on the woman's.   I can't recall the incident myself, but I hope those
    involved took more into account than the mere sex memberships of the
    suggestors...if not, then you're right, that's crummy regardless.
    
    							=maggie

    RE: .23
    
    Maggie,
    
    There was a study done to note people's nonverbal behavior in
    a room when someone is speaking, and what you experienced was
    exactly what happened to women, regardless of the gender of
    the audience. Men got more nods of the head, eye contact,
    and other reinforcers and women got just the opposite. So
    you're not alone. I wish I could remember where I read 
    this, but I can't at the moment.
    
    Eileen