[6513] in APO-L
Our Matriarchal Society
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MUNGOJERRIE (John Given))
Fri Aug 6 13:07:16 1993
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 12:11:27 EDT
Reply-To: "MUNGOJERRIE (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: "MUNGOJERRIE (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
First of all, I know this is leaving APO business, (sorry, Ellen) but the
traffic on APO-L has been slow during the summer anyway, so I hope no one is
offended by a little tangential intelligent discussion.
That was a very interesting article, Chip. It contained some very good
points, especially the recognition that there is certainly sexism against men
in our society, as is well symbolized by scads of muscular men hanging on
women's walls. And, yes, this does seem somehow to be more acceptable than
pin-ups of scantily clad women. The practice is definitely equally wrong and
should not be tolerated.
However, to use this example to say that we live in a matriarchal society is
ludicrous. Our language, for one, is very patriarchal. The author of the
article showed this himself when he said he was going to complain to the
"chairman." Why is it that even when women take on the leadership of a
committee, they are still often referred to as a "chairman?" The problem
with this particular example is that "chairman" is a title which is applied
to an office-holder, regardless of who is in the office. One might argue
that if the officer is a man then it is perfectly acceptable to call him a
"chairman." But, as I said, the title applies to the office, not the office-
holder. A title ("chair") is needed to apply to the office no matter who is
holding it.
The author cites the fact that women are used to symbolize such abstract
virtues as justice. This practice, of course, goes back to ancient times as
a glance at any ancient Roman government building will show. But is this
really sexism against men? No, instead it is exploiting a masculine vision
of female beauty and equating that with justice or liberty. They were men
who made these carvings and symbols which have carried into our society.
Their objectification of the female and her beauty is the cause of their
representation of the virtues as feminine figures.
The author also makes mention of the affirmative action "hurdles" which a man
must overcome to gain leadership positions in society. If there are hurdles,
they must be pretty low. After all, we can see how many men have difficulty
defeating female opponents in politics. And I wonder how many of the Fortune
500 companies have female CEO's or even women on their Boards of Trustees.
In our society, there is a nearly equal number of women and men. Why then
don't the ratios in our government and business world reflect the ratios of
women to men (and whites to blacks to Hispanics, etc.) in society as a whole.
This is the purpose of affirmative action legislation (which, thank God, some
rich white male politicians are courageous enough to enact), to make the
business world reflective of the society as a whole. This does not mean that
it is a quota system. But it is an attempt to look to the future of our
nation and to guarantee that there is an equality among all people of all
races, genders, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and of
everything else which make each of us a unique human being.
Of course, as the author correctly states, the attitudes which prolong sexism
are taught in childhood. Boys are taught to be naughty and dirty and girls
are taught to be young ladies. Perhaps if boys were not taught violence and
the need to be superior, the would not, as men, feel the need to be superior
to women. I think I was made of "sugar and spice and everything nice," along
with some of the bad stuff. And so were the girls. In that, we are all
alike. Isn't it a shame that we don't treat each other alike?
YiLFS,
John Given
President, Alpha Gamma Alpha
Dickinson Colelge, Carlisle, PA
given@dickinson.edu
