Women and Physically Demanding Jobs

PAGE 3 OF 3

I don't understand this conversation at all, except that there seems to be
an argument about whether men are the beneficiaries or victims of the
current set-up and, if they are victims, do they accept it as price to pay
or have they just been set up.

It is true that many men and women support a system in which men take more
risks, suffer more harm, and get more rewards in terms of money and power.

It is also true that many more women than men have tried to destablize
this sex/gender reward system by striving to do jobs that men have done
(with the risks -- now women make up about 15% of the military and
military women are the biggest proponents of eliminating the combat ban).

They have done so under the theory that men should not have to bear all
these burdens, that families benefit if men take more of a role in
nurturing children, that women benefit from the opportunities and the
economic autonomy that comes with paid work, which needs to be available
in a way that permits both men and women to also care adequately for
families.

The big resistance has come from men. Any woman who has broken a gender
barrier -- VMI, Diane Joyce (Johnson v. Santa Clara County), women
firefighters and police officers, women truck drivers, women electricians,
plumbers, carpenters, you name it -- has been the target of vicious
attacks on the job, including fouling up machinery (see the story of the
WASPS -- male mechanics sabatoged the planes), threats of rape, denial of
safety equipment. So if a woman is killed in a place where she is not
supposed to be, much is made of it. But unusual stories attract news
reports -- that's all. Do you know the names of the women killed in the
Gulf War? I don't -- that's because it's now not so unusual as it once
was.

Men who enter women's fields do not experience such attacks -- at least
not from women.  To the contrary, they quickly get elevated. Male nurses,
librarians, elementary school teachers -- and so on.

Those few men who take time off to do family care DO get newspaper
articles written about them and stories on t.v. Why aren't men doing more
of it?

If you want tales of working class heroism, let's look at the entire
population of (women) health care aides. Where are the men lining up for
these back-breaking, emotionally demanding, low-waged jobs? Trash
collectors get union benefits, civil service pay scales, autonomy. If
women don't get those jobs, it's so because employment services DO NOT
SUGGEST such jobs for women, who might be quite happy for the idea. To the
contrary, they are tracked into low-waged, hands-on care jobs. Look at
welfare "training" programs.

Men who resist changing the system do so because, by and large, men
benefit in terms of wages, power, and prestige. Feminists (men and women)
have been fighting for both men and women to share ALL the burdens and the
benefits. What, exactly, is the argument about?

Cynthia Harrison
Associate Professor, History/Women's Studies
Funger 506G,
The George Washington University
2201 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20052
telephone & fax: 202-363-4356        e-mail: harrison  @  gwu.edu

McAuliffe was another exceptional case.  And I would suggest that the focus
upon her death may have had more to do with the fact that she was not an
astronaut than with her gender.

Denesha Alexander
University of Oklahoma
English Department
alexander  @  ou.edu

Is there anything more dangerous than prostitution?  Considering that women
can't even walk down the street at night without fear of being assaulted,
women who are prostitutes are even at higher risk since they walk the
streets at night.  Women engaged in sex work are victimized by pimps and
johns; young girls/women without means are sold into slavery; johns often
refuse to wear condoms, exposing the prostitutes to HIV; periodically, one
hears of serial killers whose targets are prostitutes.  Women are excluded
from all kinds of lucrative work, blue-collar and white collar.


At 12:14 17/07/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> I doubt you'll ever see women lining up for garbage
>> collection positions. They tend to exclude themselves from
>> this type of work.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Rosa Maria Pegueros, J.D., Ph.D.
Women's Studies Program &       Washburn Hall, 217C
Department of History           E-mail:
University of Rhode Island      <rpe2836u  @  postoffice.uri.edu>
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3  Telephone: (401) 874-4092
Kingston, RI 02881                    Fax: (401) 874-2595
<http://www.uri.edu/personal/rpe2836u/>
<http://nick.uri.edu/artsci/wms/pegueros.htm>

"I have learned from my teachers and from my colleagues. But
I have learned the most from my students." --Rabbi Hanina

I have a problem with citing examples from the 80's.   At least in my
area of Wisconsin times are changing, although slowly.  My husband is a
small-business contractor specializing in residential structures and has
worked with women roofers.  His work crew is our sons and at times, when
she is available and needs work, our niece (22 years old).  He would not
hesitate to hire a woman if she has the work ethic and the willingness
to learn the business.

I know there are women plumbers and electricians in our area.  Also,
more and more women are farming independently, not with fathers and
husbands, in what has been considered by both government and community
to be a traditionally man's field. My brothers, both farmers, have
women employees.  

I have a young female friend who just completed her first year in the
air force and is an airplane mechanic.

I'm interpreting the reason we don't see more women in the
traditional-wage fields is due to socialization.  Boys and girls
continue to see blue collar jobs as segregated by gender.  Young women
don't even consider most laborer jobs as a possibility.  Until mothers,
fathers, relatives, friends start encouraging young women to enter those
fields, we will have gender-segregated jobs.

Cynthia H. Welch
Women's Studies
UW-Eau Claire
Eau Claire  WI  54702
welchch  @  uwec.edu

Jen:

Sorry, I thought I made it clear. Of COURSE men
also participate in the socialization process!

The lack of balance you detect in my examples is
partly a function of my minority status here. The
function of men in reinforcing negative stereotypes
and traditions of all kinds [the "sport" of American football
is, for me, the classic example] is well documented
is well documented in this forum.

The role of women in reinforcing these stereotypes receives
less attention here. [i.e., many boys hate football, but
play it for the status it provides, and NOT just status
among men.]

J.S.

James H. Steiger, Professor
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Voice and Fax; (604)-822-2706
EMAIL: steiger  @  unixg.ubc.ca


> Is there any case then when men play a significant or
> originating role in
> the socialization process? Do men ever have responsibility for their
> actions/surveillance of other men?

> Remember who got all the attention when the
> space shuttle blew up? As I recall, it was the
> woman school teacher. Christa McAuliffe. The name
> pops right up in memory. What
> was the name of the male chief officer on
> that flight?
> On the other hand, when a space capsule fire
> killed a bunch of astronauts, you barely heard
> about it.

This, as well as the examples of attractive young female victims of violent
crimes gaining media attention, is much more than simply concern or interest
of society in the well-being of women... I see a well-published message that
women have much to fear.  Such media coverage serves the not-so-innocent
purpose of constantly reminding women that they are (or should see
themselves as) at the mercy of violence and, therefore, should come to terms
with helplessness for their own good and stay, well, inside? at the side of
"someone" who can "protect" them? read: in their place?  There are many
systems in place for instilling fear, and fear, of course, is a powerful
tool... even an abstract such as this might lend different
perspective/language to the workplace conversation.  It seems to be an
unspoken but present thread throughout the analysis thus far.

Lauren Pretnar
empty27  @  earthlink.net

Why did McAuliffe get more coverage than Resnik? Or Jarvis? Hard to say.

First of all, did she get more coverage or is memory just selective to who is
remembered more? I don't know, either way. But in my book, I remember Resnik
a lot more that McAuliffe. The attitude, the dedication, the inspiration. Even
Jarvis (Hughes engineer) has more points in my memory than McAuliffe.

Just as looking over a port of jacks and ensigns at half mast is forever
inscribed in memory.

I'll skip the jokes. I HATED them then and I do now. My superiors at the time
who told them, some of them I already had low opinions of and for them to
be laughing at such a disaster dropped their points even lower.

But, assuming that she did get more coverage:

It could have been the backlash. She was an example of the shuttle being used
as a political device. This congressman. That prince. This citizen. A
situation where a very expensive tool was being used more (or significantly)
as a publicity meduim and less for science. Possible, even if there is
siginificant propaganda always through out the space program.

That her death 'showed' that not only should the non science/engineer not
be in space, but especially if that person is a woman? That I think not for
there was certainly enough opposition to John Glen's flight or the
millionarie's flight.

The death of a woman,espeically a young attactive one, tends to draw more
viewers than anyone else. Ie, Lady Di dies in a car crash and the stories
go on and on. Jessica Savitch dies in a car crash and it is a one day,
partial page article in the paper. That said, we're down to Resnik and
McAuliffe getting more coverage (assuming) than the five others.

It could have been an arguement in religion. Resnik was Jewish, the others
weren't. A weak argument, perhaps, although I will point out that while
Israel has male astronauts, there are no female astronauts. Why not?
To be an astronaut is Israel, you need to be a jet pilot. Only recently
have women been allowed into the military jet school. So if religon, it
could be either an internal issue or a matter of state or both.

It could have been just plain looks although Resnik floating in zero g
in the top and shorts with her hair out all over the place always seemed
like a knock out to me. Long hair is said to be more feminine and if that is
not a prime example, then what is?

If it was anything, I'd go for that McAuliffe fit the profile of someone
who the general public would identify with more, over all, thru all age
groups. Resnik was driven, dedicated, worked hard, but also fun as indicated
in her "Cowabunga." She would go out for flights in T-38's and yet be able
to relax and have fun at night at clubs, even if still in her flightsuit
(the NASA nametag removed).

But how much the public can that apply to? How much of the viewing public would
see her as thier image of a woman as compared to the image of a woman that
McAuliffe presented. Young, a teacher, one who takes care of children, whose
education is not significant to oppose the viewers. Even if she has a PhD
in education, she is still just a teacher. Is that the image that more of the
country would like to see, that more of the country would tune into?

I would like to think not, but still........

Assuming that it is, then it is unfortunate, but it is the way that this
country often 'views' occupations. While there is something for the cost to
the body, the sports figure gets more than Kelly Johnson. We pay more attention
to the rescues by Harrison Ford than the rescues of a Coast Guard swimmer.
Golfer Payne dies in an air crash and how long did the stories run? Samantha
Smith (went to USSR to talk to Andropov) or Tx. Ex. Senator Towers dies in an
air crash and did anyone even notice? What happened on Sondra Bullock's plane
will probably stay in the news longer than a downed military transport.

With such a difference in the importance of coverage, is it a wonder why some
see the news as entertainment and not information?

-Traci
th06  @  swt.edu
("We sank a cruise ship, Sam! We have to turn ourselves in."
"Oh, come off it! Yes, today it is terrible, but next week, the world will
be more concerned with the world soccer championship!"--Sam, (wtte),
Whalesong, SeaQuest)

When I was growing up, my parents would constantly instill the value of
education in me. For without it, they would say, I could get a job as
a ditch digger, but I would not be happy.

While the world needs garbage collectors and ditch diggers, is such what
parents push their offspring to be? Perhaps if they want them to be the
head of the company as Phil (George Coe) was in Cousins, but here again,
do we have what is inspiration?

Do parents inspire their children to be garbage collectors/ditch diggers?
Generally, no.

Does literature inspire that there is life out there to be made as a
garbage collector/ditch digger? Again, no. And if it is there, it is there
as a joke, such as Cousins, such as Star Trek IV, such as Clive Clusser's
Mediterrean Caper (title?), such as CaddyShack, such as Terminator, such
as McCloud in Paris.

With such little inspiration, the expectation that one would be lining up for
such a job is rather ridiculous.

Granted, more may line up to be ditch diggers, but the two jobs, aside from
being at the low end of employment, tend to have differences. Probably the
biggest is that one can draw a sense of creatitivity from being a DD.

So are death rates relative? Is the illusion of death relative? Depends.

In a book about professional underwater photography, there was a point
that a woman UWP will attract more attention than a male. Just the way the
market is. It may be sex such as, possibly, Michelle Thompson handling sea
snakes, or it may be the daring, possibly, such as Valerie Taylor wearing
chain mail to face off sharks, but according to the book, it's the maverick
stand point.

Is it? What makes Teri Irwin stand out? Is it her daring as Steve hands her
vipers or as she gets down and dirty in handling a crocidile? Well, aside
from the standpoint that she's rather calm to Steve's brashness, I see it
as dedication to what she believes in inspite of the risk of death.

Dedication inspite of the risk, believing in a cause inspite of the risk,
willing to handle hardship to achieve what one believes in. Philosphical?
Of course. Out of place in the real world? Not if one can use it to direct
their reality. Consider women like Jane Goodall, Syliva Earle, or various
American/Canadian/Russian (or Soviet) women astronauts (there are other
countries as well, of course, but those would be at the top of my list
for dedication driven). Occupations with significant levels of risk and
while it is not known (to me atleast) what drove them, they are a source of
inspiration that can be used as examples of dedication to overcome risk and
hurdles.

"Got to love it!" is what another woman in one of my marine biology classes
said. How very true. But with love comes dedication and the willingness to
surpass.

Why aren't women lining up to be garbage collectors? Well, aside from the
standpoint that they are probably smarter than that, there is little in
that line of work to love, to be dedicated to, to believe in a cause.

It is not necessarily the danger that draws one to a job; it is probably more
for most that they can accomplish what they want to do, or, barring that,
what needs to be done, inspite of the danger.

-Traci
th06  @  swt.edu
("My parents still have my 1st grade report card. It says, "Good book
learning but lacks common sense. They have it framed next to a picture of me
skiing off a cliff." (wtte)--woman skier in advertisement)

> Remember who got all the attention when the
> space shuttle blew up? As I recall, it was the
> woman school teacher. Christa McAuliffe. The name
> pops right up in memory. What
> was the name of the male chief officer on
> that flight?
> On the other hand, when a space capsule fire
> killed a bunch of astronauts, you barely heard
> about it.

>From memory:

Scobbee, Osnaka, Jarvis, Resnik, McAuliffe

5 out of 7. Probably not bad though I apoligize for the misspelling of
Osnaka's name.

Apollo 1:
Grissom
White
Chaffee

First on the shuttle. Names vary depending on what they mean to people.
In my book, Resnik always pops up first. McAuliffe? Well, one can admire
hard work. She serves as an arguement point that she could become an
astronaut* because her society supports (or supports more than Japan and
Israel) such. And while I wouldn't say she lacks, she is just in an area
that I would not use an inspiration. If I wanted to be an astronaut, I'd
get there by studying a skill needed there.

*astronaut(/cosmonaut): by accepted defination, it is a title that one gets
by being higher than 50 miles above the surface of the Earth (not sure if
flying vs. floating (if such were possible) ie in a balloon as Capt.
Kittinger might have done (he was already 102800 feet up)). Therefore,
that defination applies to those launched by rockets and some X-15
pilots.
However, since one can be bumped from a space flight for one reason or
another, I classify that anyone trained for the job, ie 'graduated' so
they could be called on to do the job, is an astronaut. The use of this
defination produces a much larger pool when analyzing astronauts. Ie,
for example, the various USAF women trained for the shuttle back when
we were thinking of lauching the shuttle on military (ie, polar orbits)
missions out of SLC-6, Vandenburg AFB, CA.

But I also have a high interest in the space program. So I'm probably one
of the ones who can tell you the first four pilots of the shuttle without
looking it up: Young, Crippen, Truly, Engle. And part of that comes from
a news photographic memory. Ie, Young was ONE HAPPY MAN when he stepped off
the shuttle at Edwards. You could see it in his face, his step.

On Apollo 1:

Afraid I was too young in 1967(?) to remember the Apollo 1 fire. But I will
point out one thing (and it rather applies to the Mercury 13 as well).
One has to remember the time. The country was racing against their rival
power to the moon. Right or wrong, how national image was seen, both in
and out of the country, probably drove a lot of decisions.

Let's consider Apollo 1 for a moment, given the above. Limited news because
no one cared? Or because you don't want to tell the world, your country,
just how bad you mucked it up? Pure oxygen at 3 lbs. (?) pressure because
that is lighter. A hatch that opens inward and takes a long time to open?
Rushing so much that you put the crew at even a greater risk.

Add to that the war in Viet Nam, the upheaval of the Great Society,
McNarma's techniques, the USAF trying to get their hand in (though
I think that such as MOL and DynaSoar were over years earlier; only
pressure from Nixon got them to join in NASA's efforts) at
space exploration, and you may not want to expose the mistakes made
incase a population might decide to stop that program.

Not to mention it was a closed coffin funeral. So was the Challenger,
of course. But counter that with the coverage of Salyut 1/Soyuz 11
(Dobrovolskiy, Volkov, Patsayer) and the coverage they got in an open
casket state funeral and the impact of the population. Words to the
effect by a commoner: "Let us see them, comrade! They were our
cosmonauts, too!" Different country, different society, and perhaps
even a little propaganda, but I think not. Just looking at the Kursk's
photos (Russian submarine) of the impact of death on one's countryman,
espeically in an area where death is suppose to be somewhat reduced.

Three space mission deaths and their funerals afterward, what's the
difference? A and B. A, does it serve the national interest?
Soyuz 11, yes. Apollo 1, perhaps not. Challenger, we had the mourning
at the time of the crash. It was weeks, if not months before the remains
were recovered from the ocean floor. Reminding the population with an
upfront confrontation of that January would not help the country's morale.
At some point, life has to go on.

If A, then B? Are our fallen heros presentable? Soyuz 11, yes. Apollo 1,
no. Challenger, not bodies but remains, no.

I don't believe because there were no women in the crew would cause such
a poor coverage. I think it was just the affairs of the nation at the
time.

Now, GRANTED, having a female presence in the film does generate
attention. Ie, Kent State. Is it the offense or her anguished face?
Or Viet Nam, the nude little girl running crying from her destroyed
village? Or the POW returning, his daughter running to him, arms
open, with the unspoken 'DADDY!' in the photograph?

But things vary. How much attention, for example, did Earle in the
Tektite program generate? Quite a lot, looking at the notes (I
don't remember that then, however). Why? Because she was an early
woman diver? Or because the public attention was directed that way
with lots of Nat'l Geographic specials on Cousteau? Probably, IMHO.
more on the latter.

The notes, details, are sketchy. I came across Tektite in a Nat'l
Geographic article in 1971. Earle said that she was interviewed on
Good Morning America...but GMA didn't start till 1975. Speculation
point being is that there may have been a time lag between events
and significant press coverage. If so, then the excitement (moon),
the turmoil (war and nation), energy, watergate, and such, may have
diverted media attention. Ie, as noted above: what still photographs
from those times are memorable? Viet Nam War, Nixon, three airliners in
the Jordian desert, and so forth.

Further, I will note something else on the shuttle. Yes, Challenger
got a lot of attention......but things wane. The story that pushed
Challenger aside, in the immediate sense, was the Phillipean elections.

CONCLUSION:

Considering and evaluating a society's reaction without taking into
consideration the events in that society is something that I see as foolhardy.
It's like evaluating one of the greatest woodland fires in the western US that
caused terrible damage and a great loss of life and saying, because people
hold low regard for rural life, this fire is forgotten.....when that fire had
the 'misfortune' of occurring in the same time span as the Chicago fire.
Or the rape/murder of two sisters by a father and son but the city forgetting
about it in two weeks. Insensetative? Or perhaps the massive earthquake in
Russia at post two weeks obscurs it?

Society cannot be evaluated in a vacuum.

-Traci
th06  @  swt.edu
("Right! Issue a warrant for the Secretary of Energy!"--Captain Miller
"Mmmmm, just who is that, Barney? Darn it, I knew his name this morning!"--
Det. Harris, (wtte), Barney Miller)

I take your point that women are often complicit in their own oppression by
continuing to validate patriarchal ideology in all its sneaky guises (like
the worship of football heroes, in your example).   In order for a hegemonic
ideology to thrive,  it must gain the consent of the people under it.  I
find that few people are willing to talk about how patriarchy gains women's
consent, and how women are just as responsible for its continuation as men
are.  The argument always comes up -- as it has here -- that you can't blame
women for conforming to a system of thought that has been forced upon them.
I agree. But  I also would say that you can't blame men for it, either.
It's not about which sex is "guiltier."  Millions of women actively
participate in lifestyles that diminish and exploit them, because they
genuinely don't see it that way.  You can call this "false consciousness,"
or you can simply say that it's hard to get an objective, critical look at
an ideology you've been inside of since birth.  But the bottom line is the
same: the old system continually gets reproduced, with *everyone's* help,
including women's. I have met plenty of women who are better, more efficient
soldiers of the patriarchy than many men I've known.

There really shouldn't be any finger-pointing on this issue.  Patriarchy
screws _both_ men and women.  The only difference is,  men get better
consolation prizes (more power, more money, more autonomy).  I can see how
some people might be motivated to say that men have more responsibility for
perpetuating patriarchy, because they benefit more from it. But I would
caution such people to remember how many men pay such a high price for their
"manhood," and also that manhood is never an uncontested space.  It has
constantly to be proven to remain valid, which can be just as exhausting and
depressing for men as the corollary hardships are for women.

It might be possible to argue that Joe Average has less motivation than Jane
Average has to change the status quo (though even that statement is subject
to huge contradictions from people's lived experiences). But that doesn't
mean Joe is guiltier than Jane of creating that status quo. There is no "bad
guy" here, except for patriarchy itself.  Patriarchy by now is its own
well-oiled machine.  There's no need to look for the "guilty individuals"
who are pushing the buttons.  We're all doing it.  It's in the air, it's in
the water. Like that old commercial for Palmolive said, "You're soaking in
it." Anyone who unthinkingly replicates traditional gender ideology is
responsible for its continuation -- regardless of sex.

Ilana Nash
Bowling Green State University

----- Original Message -----

> Of COURSE men
> also participate in the socialization process!
>
> <snip>The  function of men in reinforcing negative stereotypes
> and traditions of all kinds [the "sport" of American football
> is, for me, the classic example] is well documented
> is well documented in this forum.
>
> The role of women in reinforcing these stereotypes receives
> less attention here. [i.e., many boys hate football, but
> play it for the status it provides, and NOT just status
> among men.]
>
> J.S.

I don't know if this counts as good info for teaching, but I think that it
does, if only because this perspective often gets left out when people,
professors included, talk about class.  Usually, as on this list, the
majority of the talkers are not products of the working class, and it's easy
for them to not realize what goes on "down there." So please interpret this
as my support for the idea that hegemonic class constructs, ditto gender
constructs, ARE actively supported by the people who benefit least from
them:

>
> When I was growing up, my parents would constantly instill the value of
> education in me. For without it, they would say, I could get a job as
> a ditch digger, but I would not be happy.
>
> While the world needs garbage collectors and ditch diggers, is such what
> parents push their offspring to be? Perhaps if they want them to be the
> head of the company as Phil (George Coe) was in Cousins, but here again,
> do we have what is inspiration?
>
> Do parents inspire their children to be garbage collectors/ditch diggers?
> Generally, no.

All my posts are anecdotal...but what the heck, here goes again: _my_
parents' goal for me was that I have a job.  Any job.  There were plenty of
people in our neighborhood who didn't, and we had that ethic that allows
people to die of starvation before accepting public assistance.  As for what
_kind_ of job, well, that never really came up, except that it should come
with a paycheck, and the higher the better.  If the job was dangerous,
dirty, made people go deaf or die of asbestosis, well, that's just what you
have to put up with.  Nothing to be done about it--just the way the world
is, get used to it. "The younger you kids realize this, the better off
you'll be."

The idea that a person should hope for, let alone expect, their job to
provide an outlet for creativity, self-expression, or autonomy, would not
have occurred to my family.  The idea that a person should _love_ his or her
job would have struck them as simply insane.  I remember my stepfather
telling me repeatedly that the one thing all jobs have in common is that you
hate to go to them, but that this is what a responsible person does.
(Don't tell me about hegemonic class structures--I grew up inhaling
them!<g>)

As for the value of education...well, my family believed that a college
education was probably a nice thing to have, but they were clueless about
things like admission deadlines, or the concept that one college might be
better than another (in fact, they still actively believe that Harvard is no
different from Wichita State--you just meet richer people there).  They
never actively encouraged me to go, because they made pretty decent money as
tradespeople and as I've mentioned, the paycheck is the thing we were taught
to look for.

Imagine how hard it is to try to explain to them that I've intentionally
chosen a field that will pay me about half what a forklift operater makes
out at Boeing, IF I finish my PhD and am fortunate enough to get a job in my
field.  <g>

--
Sheryl LeSage
English Department
U of Oklahoma
sjlesage  @  ou.edu

"The wood is tired, and the wood is old,
and we'll make it fine if the weather holds--
but if the weather holds,
we'll have missed the point"
                                Emily Saliers

I usually don't like to respond right away, hoping that lots of other
voices will come into the space that is created.  And they certainly have,
and, I found, really helpfully also.

I did want to respond, but I also come to the same conclusion that Joan did
when she requested that the discussion end.  I hope that this doesn't come
too late to at least give one more take on the discussion.  

Let me say that in his initial response, Jim Steiger either misunderstands
or misstates my argument.  So let me try again to clarify.

Imagine a treehouse with a big sign on it that says "No Gurls Allowed." 
Boys play happily up there, until it is pointed out to them that it is
structurally unsafe and that they need to make it safer.  "Nah, that's for
sissies," they cry and go on merrily playing until the treehouse falls down
and they get hurt.  Yes, there are disparate rates for injury.  But the
roots of those injuries lie in the same place as the ability to exclude
women in the first place.  Call it power, call it patriarchy, call it
social structure.  

It seems to me that the central premise of the work of Warren Farrell is
gender symmetry - men have roles, women have roles, men hit women, women
hit men...  And no one has power.  And it seems to me that the central
premise of most Women's Studies texts is that gender is more than an
aggregation of symmetrical roles -- it is a structure of relationships, an
institutionalization of power relations.  I don't see the point of debating
this foundational idea.  Or maybe I'm just tired.

But in case anyone feels differently, I offer this quote from Farrell's
opus, THE MYTH OF MALE POWER .  In the context of discussing what some of
you might call sexual harassment (he calls one form "workplace
prostitution," where women tries to use sex to gain advantage) he then
offers this critique of "employer-employee sex: When it is consensual,
employer-employee sex has one of the same problems of parent-child incest:
it undermines the ability of the employer to establish boundaries because
the employer often feels need of the employee.  It is this same problem
that is at the core of parent-child incest: parental authoirty becomes
undermined because the child senses it has leverage over the parent." (p.
298).

Just in case you thought incest was an issue of an abuse of parental power.
 

Anyway, I hope the list has better things to do than discuss these false
symmetries of roles and the denial of power.  I know I do.

Michael


P.S.  Christine Williams's excellent book, STILL A MAN'S WORLD was
published in the series on Men and Masculinity which I edit at University
of California Press.  Her edited book, MEN WHO DO WOMEN'S WORK was
published in the Sage Series on Men and Masculinities.  In all the cases
she examined - nursing, librarianship, elementary education - men were
promoted faster and higher than women were, although their entrance-level
motivations for their chosen field were virtually identical.  (And women
and men at VMI, Citadel, and West Point all share the same motivations for
going to military school.)  William's work on the "glass escalator" is a
terrific parallel to the glass ceiling studies and really does show how
both trajectories (men doing "women's work" and women doing "men's work")
reproduce gender inequality.  So much, again, for false equivalences. 

***********************
Michael Kimmel
Brooklyn, NY 
michaelskimmel  @  compuserve.com
www.michaelkimmel.com

A major new APA study has examined the
correlates of injury to male and female
firefighters. It presents a lot of
interesting data, raising many questions
for future research.

The full text of the paper is at
http://www.apa.org/journals/ocp/Press_Releases/July_2001/ocp63229.html


James H. Steiger, Professor
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
Voice and Fax; (604)-822-2706
EMAIL: steiger  @  unixg.ubc.ca

Any discussion of power is going to be complex - much
too complex to come to any real conclusions here, but
you have raised controversial issues in this last post,
and they ought not be left hanging.

The example you give from Farrell's work, that he talks
about the child's power in child/parent incest in comparison
to employer/employee sexual relationships was certainly bad
judgement on his part, but I don't think this is a good enough
reason to discard everything he says. Other things he says
actually make a lot of sense.

I agree it is still a man's world in many ways, where men get
farther in their careers more often than women, and more easily,
but I also agree with Farrell, who proposes a paradigm shift, not
to looking at the world as MF symmetrical, but as both male and
female-dominated, and more bi-sexist than sexist (Myth of Male
Power, p. xi). I think that a lot of the time neither men or women
recognize the power they have, and they only see it if and when
it's taken away.

Sue McPherson
sue  @  mcphersons.freeserve.co.uk