Quote from: Seshatneferw on April 16, 2008, 08:19:55 AM
No indeed. What I was trying to say is that while women are trapped in the current cultural set-up, so are men, although in a different way. Women who want equality strive to get to a more privileged position than where they are; men would have to move towards a weaker position than what they have. Behind the gender inequality there's an underlying set of values that puts strength over weakness, and because of this it's still something of a no-no to let go of male privilege.
Nfr
Thank goodness!!!
I was about to be truly amazed and was wondering who was posting using your credentials!!!
"Weakness" and "strength" themselves don't seem all that problematic for me. The way we culturally load those two words is.
It is NOT weak to care for children, to find compromising positions and ameliorating discourse at the workplace, for instance. To foster positive relationship rather than to "fight to the final man."
A new understanding of 'winning' may be necessary. To win seems to me to be along the lines of Marx's "From each according to her means and to each according to her needs." To win sometimes means to make concession for a better overall interaction, a focus on a more distant future than on the quarterly 'bottom line.'
As things stand those 'other' understandings of 'winning' seem to be more fully embraced by women than by men in our culture. Of course, not by all. There's that rather unremarkable occurrence of women taking on the 'traditional' personae of men in order to 'prove' themselves.
The Hilary conundrum: where she has to appear to be 'strong,' yet is also criticised for not showing warmth and compassion. Or for showing warmth and compassion and being critisized for not being strong enough.
As long as women are stuck between those two choices with 'no-win' being the order of the day whichever way they take, then we still have a basic inequity and double-bind inflicted on one sex and not the other. She becomes either 'ball-cutting bitch' or 'whiny bitch.' Those are very difficult places for anyone to stand.
And I think the basic lack of problem with Obama in similar situations due to 'his presence' (read bass voice, strong personal looks and stature, etc) despite the fact that there are no doubt many people who are otherwise scared to death that he is African-American is indicative of exactly that split about the ways we view women and the ways we view men.
White guys have been flocking to vote for a man of color -- white guys who have prolly never voted for, nor ever thought they would vote for, ANY man of color. Yet, Obama is more acceptable to them than Hilary.
And I suspect it is ABSOLUTELY because she is female.
And it's that basic 'blindness' that I perceive in many women of TS history that puzzles and totally eludes my understanding.
BTW, WW -- yes, NOW has accepted trans-women for about, if not more than, a decade. They often actually make pushes for T-rights in particular areas. Not every lesbian is a 'WBG' (women-born-girls) believer and out to exclude trans women from the 'company of women.'
My experience says most are not. My experience also says that most are unaware of transwomen among them in many cases. They know trans men from the milieu, but trans woman, except for those who do/have frequented the bars and org scenes, they are generally ignorant of.
There's a problem on both sides, but TS women who identify as 'lesbian' after transition are often much less likely to mix with other lesbians. I suspect that the reason has to do with comfort-level.
Of the people I have known there are TS hetero women who decline to work for T-causes and prefer offering their time and effort to women's shelters, hotlines, etc. They seem liklier to do so than the so-called lesbian TS women, in my experience.
But, I do think that any woman who merely dismisses 'feminism' may well do herself a major disservice without at least making that dismissal-decision based on some real study rather than accepting the pap of the Rush Limbuagh-set.
Nichole
