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