While dated, I think this is an interesting article that illuminates the fact that sexism runs both ways.

"WomenBs movement proves itBs bankrupt

Radical feminist theologian Mary Daly has been a controversial presence at Boston College for more than 30 years. Now, she is a controversial absence. Earlier this year, the 70-year-old Daly either resigned or was kicked out (depending on whether you accept the schoolBs version or hers) following the threat of a lawsuit over her refusal to admit male students to her classes.

You might think the case against Daly would be pretty much open and shut. The law says educational institutions that benefit from any federal aid cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, except for single-sex schools. When senior Duane Naquin was told he couldnBt enroll in DalyBs BIntroduction to Feminist EthicsB course because he was male, the law was violated. Daly claims she offers to teach men individually, but even if she has done so (which is in dispute), it wouldnBt get her off the hook.

You might also think feminists would seize on this opportunity to show that they stand for gender equity, not anti-male bigotry.

Wrong.

Instead, feminists from Gloria Steinem to Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation are championing DalyBs cause. BBoys, boys, boys, settle down,B sneers Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara. BYouBre accustomed to making the rules and then along comes Mary to say that everything is not about you, you, you.B The Nation ran an editorial titled BFeminist Detenured,B which depicted DalyBs plight as part of a BbacklashB against feminist academics.

A few students are supporting Daly, too. Boston College is such a Bpatriarchal place,B moans one, Megan Niziol: BWe had one two-hour class a week just for women, and now itBs gone.B Actually, about 53 percent of the students at Boston College are female.

Women make up nearly a third of the tenured faculty. That may be no feminist utopia, but neither is it a patriarchal bastion. And I bet there isnBt a single male professor who keeps women out of his classes.

DalyBs rationale for her policy is that men pollute her classroom atmosphere: Let them in, and women will be silenced and stifled. (Daly supporters such as McNamara cite research showing that men dominate in co-ed classes; but the minor sex differences found in these studies hardly support this demeaning notion of women as shrinking violets.) WhatBs more, Daly says, with men around, women Bbecome caretakers for the men.B In other words, theyBre apt to feel bad for the fellows when virulent anti-male rhetoric starts to fly. ItBs harder to preach hate when your targets are present in the flesh.

And make no mistake: Daly, hailed by some as a witty and original thinker, is indeed a preacher of hate. Her books treat men as agents of the patriarchy, Blethal organsB of a Brapist society,B misogynists who feed on female energy like parasites. She denounces the birth control pill and estrogen therapy as Bthe poisoning of womenB and asserts that the only contraception women need is a Bmister-ectomyB (such brilliant wit!).

While DalyBs views are extreme even for academic feminists, quite a few feminist professors have a problem with men in the classroom. They bemoan such BharassmentB by male students as Bchallenging factsB or Bstating the exceptions to every generalization.B They want to run consciousness-raising groups undisrupted by dissent or debate. BI want to talk about women,B another pro-Daly student whined. BI donBt want to teach anyone about why I feel oppressed.B

But a class that bars potential dissenters is incompatible with the mission of the academy. Imagine a Catholic theology professor refusing to let non-Catholics into his classes lest they should challenge Catholic beliefs and make other students uncomfortable. Indeed, one irony of the Daly situation is that at a Catholic college, the worst intolerance and dogmatism did not come from orthodox defenders of the faith but from a radical feminist.

Sadly, the reaction to this imbroglio is yet another demonstration of the bankruptcy of the modern womenBs movement. With feminists like these, you wonder if the subject of DalyBs course, feminist ethics, might be an oxymoron."

Cathy Young is co-founder and vice-president of the WomenBs Freedom Network.

For educational use only.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 27, 2000

Answers

Ventures in, looks around sheepishly and whispers

"Hey psssttt, Ken, do you wanna? um, nevermind"

TGIF. :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Nice one Ken.

And Brian cannot fathom why I am uncomfortable with "hate" crimes. The left decries and bitches and moans about unfairness and discrimination, until unfairness and discrimination aligns with their agenda. Then it is hunky dory.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive. -- Thomas Sowell

-- Quoter (quote@for.you), October 27, 2000.

I want my man to think he dominates me.

-- (Lorelei@lubricious.lips), October 27, 2000.

I doubt corruption anywhere has ever been bad enough to inspire opposition from those who benefited from it. When someone calls for "equality", see if they have power. If not, they are really asking for power. "Equality" almost invariably means "preferential treatment for me and those like me." For example, compare the *goal* of affirmative action (more people at the starting line) with the *measure* of affirmative action (who wins the race). The theory is great. In real life, NEVER work anywhere with a black female disabled veteran with a Hispanic surname.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 27, 2000.

Flint:

I wish I could disagree but I've seen too many examples of what you've pointed out in my business life. Additionally, assuming that college is supposed to prepare one for the "real" world, how will sheltering female students from male students help? They are still going to have to struggle in the post-college world with all its imperfections and inequalities. It's a lot easier to learn how to do this in school, where the worst result might be a bad grade, than in the work world, where the sanctions tend to be more extreme.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), October 28, 2000.

there is no-sexism in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN=[mind] wrong=thinking=[hell]= attitudes on earth!! HELL=wrong thinking/attitudes messy-minds!! won,t it be great=[heaven on earth] when=ALL minds are=renewed!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 28, 2000.

The keyboard produes gigglebytes and googlebytes using a binary actuariam. The hypothesis for this has been around longer that Dinty Moore can of stew that has been sitting on your shelf. I don't need a dictionary, because I wrote it myself. Did I mention I was right about y2k? Did I mention I am a genius? Did I mention that I am a member of Mensa? Yada, yada, yada. etc. etc. etc.

-- (flynt@losing.marbles), October 28, 2000.

"The AT architecture supports 16 interrupt levels, which were detailed on another of" Kenny's "stupid threads. Until recently, those interrupts which could come in externally (all but 3 of them) each required a separate pin. Pins use up real estate on the board (since signals must be routed to them), and cost money. So recently, we've developed an "interrupt bus". Instead of 13 pins, we have two pins, clock and data, and a protocol. The protocol defines WHAT clock/data pattern defines the start of a cycle, and WHEN each interrupt appears within that cycle (how many clocks from the cycle start). These are referred to as "serial IRQs" and the full cycle is called the "serial IRQ stream".

This stream can be either continuous or quiet. Continuous means the master device (the chipset) starts the cycle over and over, and monitors the IRQ stream for any newly active interrupts. Quiet means the slave device (there might be several) starts a single cycle, which is guaranteed to have at least one active interrupt (the one that cause the cycle in the first place).

The overall goal is to make systems smaller and cheaper for YOU, at the cost of making life that much more miserable for the design and development engineers. "

-- Is he this boring in person? (flint@intellecutal.giant), October 28, 2000.

Hey, far out. My very own anonymous heckler. I hadn't had any groupies for over a year. This is great.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

"I doubt corruption anywhere has ever been bad enough to inspire opposition from those who benefited from it."

You must not have thought this statement through long enough Flint. Haven't you ever benefited from something that you did not actively seek, but knew it was wrong and said something about it? To me, that's Ethics 101

" When someone calls for "equality", see if they have power. If not, they are really asking for power."

That goes without saying. In a system under a constitution that trumpets "All men are created equal" (leaving aside for a moment the fact that the designation "woman" was left out), one would naturally compare oneself to others as human beings to see if fairness is being applied.

"Equality" almost invariably means "preferential treatment for me and those like me."

No it does not at all. What it means is "correcting the treatment for me and those like me who have been suppressed by abuse of power."

For example, compare the *goal* of affirmative action (more people at the starting line) with the *measure* of affirmative action (who wins the race). The theory is great. In real life, NEVER work anywhere with a black female disabled veteran with a Hispanic surname."

In other words, what you're saying is; "I was cozy and happy being in a powerful group who got their power by any means, and now that I have to be fair I'm upset and won't go for it."

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

smarty:

If I had meant something different, I would have said something different. I admire your idealism, and I'm sure we need a lot more of it. But you might try recognizing reality, even if it's not what you would prefer. This forum's history is marvelous testimony to peoples' ability to believe what they prefer, just because they want it bad enough. Don't fall victim to your own delusions. Your goals are worthy, but you can't reach them if you don't know your enemy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

10 Things that Men know about Women

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. They have breasts

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), October 28, 2000.

oh heckdarn format is everything. disregard previous

10 Things that Men know about Women

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. They have breasts

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), October 28, 2000.

It's looks really really bad when you blow a male-bashing joke LOL. okay I give up. =)

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), October 28, 2000.

I'm still wondering why the topic of sexism seems to be popular with Ken.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 28, 2000.

"If I had meant something different, I would have said something different."

So I got you on the defensive. 2 points for me.

"I admire your idealism, and I'm sure we need a lot more of it. But you might try recognizing reality, even if it's not what you would prefer."

Turn that around Flint, and you can begin doing some introspection.

"This forum's history is marvelous testimony to peoples' ability to believe what they prefer, just because they want it bad enough."

That's a cheap tactic Flint, to use the "I was right about Y2K" line, we're discussing something that has no bearing on anything you were previously right about, whatever it was.

" Don't fall victim to your own delusions. Your goals are worthy, but you can't reach them if you don't know your enemy. "

I'm on my guards about my own delusions, today more than ever, thanks to my mistakes about Y2k (-1 point for me for mentioning y2k.) And I know my enemy well enough, I've spent a lifetime studing them.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

PS: typos don't count, I'm drinking wine (i.e. studying)

Cin, hang in there! ;-)

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

Flint, you have your own Greek chorus. Congratulations.

Smarty, you have a nasty habit of distorting the statements of others. You are the one projecting Flint into a "powerful group who got their power by any means." Nothing I have read suggests Flint has a white-knuckled grip on the levers of power. (laughter) Why not just ask men to pay reparations to all women. It would be more intellectually honest than pretending affirmative action (in practice) is about equal treatment.

Anita... I suppose I still consider it a pressing social problem. As evidenced in recent threads, some seem to have trouble understanding the concept applies to men and women equally.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), October 29, 2000.

Thanks, Ken. I've never in all my [mumble, mumble] years encountered sexism, so I can't say I understand what the fuss is about. I'd chalk that up to looking like the "girl next door", but my daughters and my nieces have never complained about it either.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

Ken:

Had it been a distortion, I could probably have identified what was distorted and how it was done. But smarty has instead produced a non sequitur, an outright fabrication. So I'm left to guess why she might not be capable of even focusing *near* the topic. Alcohol perhaps?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

'Nita,

You might give a little credit to the era of this society we share, and to some of those who have gone before you.

-- flora (***@__._), October 29, 2000.

Flora:

I think there's more to it than that. We were studying gender roles in my Human Growth and Development class recently. Fathers are the strongest influences on the gender roles that their daughters develop. I'm trying to remember if they are on the gender roles that their sons develop, but my memory isn't what it once was. When I was studying that chapter, I got to thinking about MY dad, and Cherri's dad. We were both extremely fond of our dads, and our dads were the people we respected most of our two parental figures.

Anyway [get to the point, Anita!], I think perhaps our childhoods played very important roles in how we saw ourselves once we grew up. We didn't think of ourselves as sex objects, so no one else did either. We didn't think of ourselves as having any particular role, so no one else did either. Does that make any sense?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

'Nita,

I guess I was thinking more in terms of privileges that you now enjoy automatically, such as the right to vote. {One of my Great Aunts was a suffragette, that may explain my perspective}.

There are other contributing factors to gender roles besides the tremendous influence of the parent of the opposite sex. Not all gay men have had domineering Mothers, just as not every overbearing matron turns her son into a homosexual.

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly.

-- flora (***@__._), October 29, 2000.

Well done Flint, divert attention to the post where I debated your statements line by line by putting me down. You still have to conteract what I said.

Ken, why do you feel you have to defend Flint? I think he's very capable of correcting me if he feels I've distorted his statements. Trying to gang up on me? hmm?

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 29, 2000.

smarty:

["If I had meant something different, I would have said something different."

So I got you on the defensive. 2 points for me.]

So you pat yourself on the back and give yourself credit for putting words in my mouth that I never said, while you attack me for "saying" them. This is either abysmally stupid, or equally dishonest. Pick one and admit it. Until you do, what do you expect of someone you lie about? Approval?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Flora:

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about being raised in a matriarchy versus a patriarchy. It appears as though women who develop a strong relationship with a father who's supportive of them don't define themselves within the gender roles that even their own mothers assumed. I'd go so far as to suggest that the same is true of men who develop a strong relationship with a mother who's supportive of them. My mate was very close to his mother, who was very supportive of him. He grew up to be confident in his own right and never felt a need to impose himself on others. I'm assuming a two-parent family here, and one wherein the parent of the same-sex doesn't interfere with the support system.

I can't extrapolate to situations wherein the opposite-sexed parent was manipulative, or non-supportive, nor where the same-sexed parent objected or rejected the support provided by the opposite-sexed parent. There's much more involved in the family than one parent's response to a given child. Parenting methods: authoritarian, authoritative, neglectful, indulgent, conflict resolution, etc.

I guess what I was saying was that Loolwa [or whoever], who has conflicts to this day is a product of the same era that we are, so I can't necessarily thank the sufferage movement for how *I* turned out, while others didn't turn out anywhere near as secure in their personal identity.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2000.

"There are and will be those who think I have gone overboard. Let them rest assured that this assessmment is correct, probably beyond their wildest imagination, and that I will continue to do so."

Mary Daly--

Triple Ph.D., grande dame of feminist theologian scholarship, demolition derbyist of patriarchal Bmindbindings,B perennial foe of Buniversity bore-ocrats and other academented busybodies,B self- described BPositively Revolting Hag,B and influential author and activist--writes the above words in the opening pages of her most recent work, the autobiographical Outercourse (1992).

Daly, like many a feminist icon, started out a perfectly normal, good little girl, albeit unusually bright who wanted to study philosophy and religion. Amazing as it may seem twoscore years later, in the 1950s there were no American universities that allowed women to enter their graduate programs in theology. Dismayed, yet determined to follow her path, Daly repaired to Switzerland, living on a shoestring for several years and amassing various advanced degrees from the University of Freiburg when not sojourning about Europe on a scooter.

Back in the States, Daly found herself amidst social currents that would soon give rise to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the sixties. In her own sphere she was beginning to take aim--with all cool academic rigor--at the male supremacism of organized Christianity, first in The Church and the Second Sex (1968) and then in the groundbreaking, germinal Beyond God the Father (1973).

Daly was an exuberant participant in the feminist activism of the seventies, and both her books and her actions put her regularly in the disfavor of her employer, the theology department of the Jesuit-run Boston College. DalyBs first book got her fired, briefly, from her teaching position there, and her battles with the RC hierarchy over the years have made her a repeated cause celebre.

A scholar and seeker by nature, Daly did not set out to be a radical. But a telling sentence in Outercourse might explain the impetus that created a radicalBs life--and indeed that drives all progress: BI was looking,B she writes, Bfor something that was not in the courses.B

and ...

'Radical feminist theologian and author Mary Daly has barred men from her classes at Boston College for 25 years, saying that "the dynamic is totally interrupted" with males in the classroom.'

Ken,

I'm glad you picked this back up.

Something doesn't seem right here. The woman has barred men from her classes for 25 years. What's up now? And how does the RC hierarchy figure into this?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 29, 2000.

Here's an article that addresses the issue with broader influence & implications. More muddy water for the gender swamp:

"The War On Boys -

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex"

by Christina Hoff Sommers

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm

-- flora (***@__._), October 30, 2000.

"so I can't necessarily thank the sufferage movement for how *I* turned out, while others didn't turn out anywhere near as secure in their personal identity"

I guess we won't be counting on Anita to lead the feminist movement.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 30, 2000.

It hit me what I really find wrong with Anita's statement. Take it back two hundred years. Would you feel the same way? The right to vote and other opportunities (along with your parental upbringing) have given you the life you lead today. Without the feminist movement, you wouldn't feel so confident with your identity. You would only be known as Mrs so-in-so and nothing more.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 30, 2000.

Anita,

I have to agree with Maria and Flora. The sufferage movement has MUCH to do with the way every woman today has turned out. Your right on top of the election this year. Who would you be if you were not 'allowed' to vote in it because you were female?

Ken,

Any other examples that would illuminate the fact that sexism runs both ways?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 30, 2000.

Flora, I thought of that when Ken started another thread on a similar topic (Women can be sexist?) I really despise Helen Brown ?(the editor of Cosmopolitan). That magazine epitomizes the female impression of what the male dominant impression of what a woman should be. Does that make sense? They air brush women's bodies so of course not even the models are perfect; they advertise for all the items women need to buy to make us attractive to a man; and just an overall attempt to say that we're nothing without a man in our lives. Yet they advertise themselves as some "progressive" women's magazine. Yeah the only progressive thing is to discuss sex in every issue.

In all fairness, I haven't read the magazine in over twenty years so I'm unclear on where it stands today. But, I don't think it's changed any. A friend of mine used to subscribe when we were in college and I never understood why. Now I don't feel the same way about Family Circle (and similar elk). They don't try to hide under a cloak. They are what they are and I can tolerate it. (Besides, a friend of mine is an editor ;)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 30, 2000.

Debra:

I believe Ken's thread emanated from the one you put up on Loolwa [sp?], wherein SHE described the problems that SHE is encountering TODAY. Since she lives in the same era as I, and *I* have no problems, why would I go back 200 years and suggest that the sufferage movement saved ME from problems but didn't save HER?

This is NOT to say that I'm not grateful for the many women who came before me. It's simply to suggest that if X% of the population is NOT having problems, and Y% of the population IS having problems that there's something else at the root of the problems.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 30, 2000.

It sounds like the author has a personal problem not one brought on by society. Anita, I think you're using two examples (just as the author did) and extrapolating into our culture. As Ken pointed out that author needed to start from collecting data from many more points that just her own experiences.

When you say the suffrage movement has no effect on how you live your life today, I have to disagree. Of course it does. True your parents had lots to do with your personality, as mine had an impact on me (my mother was a true feminist and taught me lots). But you're confusing your own personality (when you state your "personal identity") with society's view of women.

When you state you never encountered sexism, I have to say you're lying. All women encounter sexism, that's a fact Jack. Further it has nothing to do with X% (and 100-X%) of the population who experience problems. It's an attitude and (may be the norm but) it permeates everywhere.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 31, 2000.

Does ANYONE have any other examples that would illuminate the fact that sexism runs both ways?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), October 31, 2000.

Debra, as in male nurses?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 31, 2000.

Debra,

I have an example of how sexism runs both way, though apparently it is a kind of genetic selection that seems sexist. I was recently reading a fascinating article about how our genes affect our behavior. Apparently when women were shown a picture of a handsome man wearing a Burger King outfit, and then a homely man wearing a Rolodex, and were asked which they would choose as mates, the women overwhelmingly chose the ugly guy with the Rolodex. (Of course, men always choose beautiful women in these kinds of quizzes, even when garbed in Burger King uniforms.)

My question is -- what is the female equivalent of the Rolodex watch?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Celia,

Was your question a joke?

-- flora (***@__._), November 01, 2000.

Ok, we're talking the hypothetical rolodex equivalent here {I notice none of you fellas steppd up to answer}.

If this forum produced results similar to those from an informal poll I took years ago, most guys would answer 'big eyes' & the rest might admit to 'big hands'.

-- flora (***@__._), November 01, 2000.

Celia:

Could you possibly mean "Rolex" watch? What am I missing?

Ken:

Do you remember the debate between John Newcombe (then Wimbledon champion) and Billie Jean King (also champion) about the disparity of purses between men's and women's divisions? Billie Jean claimed women's tennis was just as demanding and just as entertaining, and therefore women deserved equal prize money.

Newcombe responded that there was no such thing as "men's" tennis. There was the women's division, which he was prohibited from entering. And there was the open division, which Billie Jean King was welcome to enter if she chose. Newcombe said, "If you want the big money, nobody is stopping you like you're stopping me. Go out there and *earn* it, if you dare. And if you don't dare, stop your whining. The best money is awarded the best player, whether that player be man, woman or martian."

Naturally, feminists were outraged. The rules of engagement were crystal clear -- female superiority is a matter of observation and measurement ONLY when it's real. Otherwise, it's a matter of *definition*. And Newcombe was cheating!

I think Billie Jean ultimately won this battle, but the victory was rather expensive. Tennis split into a men's tour and a woman's tour, purses were paid from revenues, and women's revenues were far lower. Apparently womens tennis wasn't just as entertaining after all, and people really were willing to pay more to watch the best tennis, and not merely the best women. Women did achieve equal prize money in the few remaining tournaments with both womens' and open draws, though.

And this harks to several current threads. You can indeed achieve through politics what you cannot achieve by merit.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 01, 2000.

Flint!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), November 01, 2000.