| | |
|
JenniferBurke-SecondPaper 6 - 04 May 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | (my last update was just to correct a grammatical error I had not noticed. This can be looked at.) | | |
In Their Own Shadow: How Women Perpetuate Female Invisibility | | |
| |
<
< | Jen,
Your argument is interesting. I never regarded the bipolarity that working women suffer (i.e. the growing conviction that they must choose either ruthless corporate climbing or getting walked on) as self-imposed. | >
> |
- Almost any reader is likely to be struck by the problem presented in the resonance of the formal call for loyalty at the start of the essay with the recognition that feminists don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's not a "conflict," that has to be resolved, but rather a form of tension that should be observed and felt, rather than left unacknowledged. I also think the argument that there will be no male feminists if women aren't loyal to one another is facile, and almost certainly wrong. I don't think men who believe in women's equality therefore expect women to avoid undermining one another, because they're men and they know that men undermine one another all the time. Equality will not come as quite as big a surprise to men as they like to pretend. Men who support women don't believe in angels any more than women do.
| | | | |
<
< | I’d like to disagree. That may be because I’ve never seen women interact in the workplace, or read articles about it. But I also don’t believe in the existence of a thing called “Autonomy” against which one can evaluate individual choices or judgments. It's male-gendered capitalism that's defined competition as virtuous, and choosing not to compete as ignominious; it's our male-gendered fetish with free markets that's making our "choice" starker every year. | >
> |
- Wouldn't it have been fair to say here that women are people as men are people, and are both different and the same, as all people are to one another? Once being said, what is the recommendation for women struggling for equality that isn't also relevant to all the other movements for human respect and liberation: beware the narcissism of minor differences, there is strength in unity, keep your eyes on the prize?
| | | | |
<
< | So women (and effeminate men like me) don’t have “autonomy;" we have a Hobson’s choice. You observe rather that we're behaving like Buridan’s Asses. That's fine, because it's the same thing -- IF you acknowledge that Males are responsible for creating our dilemma, and that Males like you are perpetuating it. =) | | | | |
<
< | -- AndrewGradman - 05 Apr 2008 | | | | |
<
< | Nice paper Jen. To offer a response to your speculations about why women compete with each other: I think there is an unfortunate psychology at work in competitive professions. There is cooperation in the working world; but it is among insiders (the "boys club"). Women are forced to try to gain the acceptance of their male peers in order to avoid being dismissed (made invisible). Those who succeed at gaining some measure of acceptance don't want to jeopardize their precarious position by associating themselves with the women who haven't gained that acceptance (whether or not that is actually a risk); thus the women in the best position to help other women have no interest in doing so. Once you are "in" you have no interest in associating with those who aren't (see: high school). Anyway my hope is that the sheer numbers of women entering the profession, and organizations like the women's bar association, will allow us to support each other and agitate for a more female-friendly workplace without being dismissed.
-- ClaireOSullivan - 05 Apr 2008 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |