What is this simple, but possibly embarrassing question? What way do you
think I am reacting? Please elaborate.
With all the discussion about the value of teaching and "women's work" on
this list, do you still think that women are not devalued in this society?
With violence against women around the world; with history that excludes
women; do you think women are more valued than men? This devaluing doesn't
mean that *all* men in this society are valued, many certainly are not.
There is a social structure in place that values white, privileged men.
That is the reality.
Do you think the fact that men choose men to go to war to "protect women
and children" means that men are less valued than women? It means that in
a patriarchal society, men think men are the only ones who can protect
women and children. And the only way to do so is through violence.
-Alexa Adamo
gs09ama@panther.gsu.edu
On Tue, 26 May 1998, Guy Giffard wrote:
> >
> > What does this statement imply about a homogenous group of "single
> > women?" You ask it as though it is a ridiculous question. Ask it in
> > reverse, "how many single men do you know who would keep dating a woman
> > whose main ambition was to be a stay-at-home mom?" How ridiculous does
> > that sound? It sounds pretty common-- traditional and patriarchal, but
> > pretty common.
> >
> > Whatever your response to the e-mail, this message got nothing across but
> > sexist stereotyping. Women do get little credit for raising children. This
> > is why childcare is so undervalued in society: women are primarily
> > responsible. What is identified as female and feminine in a social
> > structure that does not value women is devalued. If more men stayed at home
> > with the children, taught elementary education, day care, the value and the
> > pay would increase.
> >
> > Alexa Adamo
> > Women's Studies Graduate Student
> > Georgia State University
> > gs09ama@panther.Gsu.EDU
> Sender: owner-edequity@confer.edc.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: edequity@confer.edc.org
>
>
> Implying that single women form a "homogenous group" is your idea, not
> mine. Of course, reacting the way you do allows you to avoid answering
> a simple (but possibly embarrassing) question.
>
> As for women's role being undervalued: if women were being really
> considered as having no importance, they would be the ones used as cannon
> fodder when there's a war, while men would safely stay behind and hope
> their wives would come back in one piece.
>
> --
> Guy Giffard
> Email: giffard@math.uqam.ca
>