Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (44078)	7/6/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Have you ever used your charms as a man to gain an advantage over a woman? Nope. (Not unless you count my arteestic dalliance with E. And I'm not sure who gained the advantage there!) Seriously, I think the second definition of stereotype DOES, for example, precisely fit the notion that women should not be allowed in front line combat. I'm not trying to be noble; I'm think that a blanket prohibition of women in those positions IS based on "An unvarying form or pattern, specif., a fixed or conventional notion or conception, [of women] held by a number of people, and allowing for no individuality." I freely admit that some women would make better combat soldiers than I would. Take Mia Hamm, for example; no question that she is stronger, faster, has better reflexes, has better endurance, than I had even in my prime. (I use her not only because she is in the news but because I was a soccer player in college, too.) But I make no allowance for her individuality, sticking with my fixed or conventional notion or conception of women. It's not a matter of trying to be noble. It's a matter of all of facing the reality that all of us have stereotypes of both men and women which get in the way of treating each other with complete equality. You may not consider opening doors for women sexist. But I can assure you, most of the radical feminist women I associated with in the 60s and 70s did. They wanted NO difference of treatment on account of their sex other than those absolutely mandated by biology (and if they could have figured out a way for men to get pregnant, they would have for sure), and felt that ANY acknowledgement of difference or different treatment based on gender was sexist. They viewed traditional politeness toward women as a societal manifestation of the weakness and subservience of women. Frankly, I thought it was dumb, but I believed in the principle of equality they were fighting for, and let them open their own doors, etc. since that is what they wanted to do to establish in their own minds the principle of complete equality, even when it made me feel, from my upbringing, rude and unsocial. (I notice you did not include cracking jokes about women in your confession.) Nope. Because I crack jokes about men, too (and lawyers). I'm an equal opportunity humorist.