Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: what the big deal is Message-ID: <2665@allegra.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 16:58:52 EDT Article-I.D.: allegra.2665 Posted: Fri Aug 3 16:58:52 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 02:27:26 EDT References: <47@ism780b.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 39 >> In order to oppress a group in a democracy, at least one of the following >> conditions must hold: >> >> (1) The group is a minority. >> >> (2) The group does not have voting rights. > This is simply nonsense. I stand by my statement, if I may remind you of the context it was made in, and ellaborate a bit on what I meant. Rich compared the situation of women to that of Blacks. I disagree with that comparison, because there is a fundamental difference in the situation of these two groups in this country -- Blacks are a minority in numbers, while women are a minority only in name. Women have the sheer numbers necessary to change their situation. What they need is awareness and organization. Of course, they're discouraged from using their power, but, AS A GROUP, they are free to ignore that discouragement. AS A GROUP, they can change their situation WITH OR WITHOUT the help of men. Blacks don't have the numbers, therefore the power, that women do. No amount of awareness and organization, ALONE, is enough to change their situation. They must change the attitudes of OTHERS, a much harder task. So I disagree with the comparison. This doesn't mean I think any individual woman has the power to change things, or that I "blame" (your word) any woman for her situation. Please don't read more into my statements that I intended. My point concerns potential power, not "effective" power, and groups, not individuals. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories