andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (10/10/85)
Normally I would answer this kind of thing by email, because I don't like personal news-wars. However I think I should give some of my seemingly out-of-the-ordinary ideas on Sharon's comments. Excuse the length. In article <1246@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: > ... Why is it >unmasculine to wear a skirt? Men don't wear skirts because >they don't want to be confused with women? I know very few >men who would be confused with women if they wore a skirt. >Skirts are for women and have, traditionally been so. A man who >wears a skirt loses power(being like a woman).... If I were to go out into the streets of Vancouver wearing a skirt, I'd get abuse from *almost everyone*, *because* I couldn't be mistaken for a woman. This is why I don't wear skirts, not because I would consider it a "loss of power" to look "like a woman" -- because *I* *don't* think of women as inferior. I could make a start in that direction, but that's a very lonely road to hoe. >...I suggest you get a hold of Susan Brownmiller's book "Femininity." >It is excellent. It is well-written, as usual. I have often thought of writing a parallel book, "Masculinity", to educate people on the restrictive standards of masculinity that dictate how men move, think, and relate to others and themselves. > Men have been dictating what is maculine and feminine >throughout time.... This is ***PURE*** ***POLITICAL*** ***THEORY*** with little basis in fact. You either believe it or you don't. I don't. If men controlled everything for their own good: - men alone wouldn't be sent off to their deaths in war - men would be able to express emotions other than anger - men wouldn't be forced to compete with each other every day in order to survive emotionally - millions of men would not be twisted by society's attempts to bash their emotions and sexuality into the forms it wants. An attempt to extrapolate from men's *AGREED* control of politics and the economy is pure theory. And if one has a nice, all-inclusive political rhetoric, as many "patriarchy" feminists do, one should be able to RATIONALIZE any of the above points. But that's all it would be, rationalization. >...Do you think women are actually dictating this fashion? No, not *women*, in general. Neither are *men*, in general. One can't be so simplistic as to pin the blame on a specific group, especially when it's obvious that there are members of that group (like *ME*) who don't fit some stereotyped view of them as male chauvinist Ray Frank clones. Yet the sociopolitical theory of Brownmiller and others is *exactly* this simplistic. And anyway, if it's so easy for men to wear skirts at the office, why isn't it equally easy for women to wear pants? Oh, right, because men control everything. (excuse heavy sarcasm) > Men have no interest in changing the standards of femininity >because they have nothing to lose if the standards remain the same, >and stand to lose security and possibly power if they do change. But >if they wanted to, they could bring about change. This is the kind of negative, sexist, stereotyping, simplistic, overgeneralized, nearsighted rhetoric that turns men off feminism. In a liberated society: - men would be able to experience the joys of raising children - men would be able to confide in each other and establish real emotional bonds instead of competing with each other - shy men would be under no greater obligation to ask women out than shy women are to ask men out today - men wouldn't be expected to be the only ones to pursue the vicious lie of glory through death in battle - men would be able to move and talk the way they wanted - men would be able to wear whatever their little hearts desired, *INCLUDING* *SKIRTS*!!!!! Let's face it, men have a lot to gain from liberation of themselves and women. The reason they don't move in that direction is that when they do, they are rejected by *most people*: the men expressing their rejection actively, the women more passively, as is the norm in our society. Sexism is not something that men do to women, or that society does to women; it's something that society does to itself, and as such, men, women, and children all suffer because of it. It's up to us to change that, for the good of everyone. --Jamie. ...ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Autumn, to me the most congenial of seasons; the university, to me the most congenial of lives." -R.Davies
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (10/11/85)
Subject: the politics of skirts In article <1246@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: >> Men have no interest in changing the standards of femininity >>because they have nothing to lose if the standards remain the same, >>and stand to lose security and possibly power if they do change. But >>if they wanted to, they could bring about change. > This is the kind of negative, sexist, stereotyping, simplistic, > overgeneralized, nearsighted rhetoric that turns men off feminism. > --Jamie. I think you have a much better grasp on feminism (There has to be a better word for it) than many women who consider themselves liberated feminists. They see feminism as a war with men in general on one side and women in general on the other. Undeniably, they have a pain but somehow that pain makes them too blind to see the pain of others. I enjoyed your article. Farzin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I guess freedom is like gold. There is not enough of it for all of us."
celeste@ssc-bee.UUCP (Celeste A Strahl) (10/12/85)
> > In article <1246@mtgzz.UUCP> seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) writes: > >> Men have no interest in changing the standards of femininity ... > > > This is the kind of negative, sexist, stereotyping, simplistic, > > overgeneralized, nearsighted rhetoric that turns men off feminism. > > --Jamie. > > They (women) see feminism as a war with men on one side and women > on the other. Undeniably, they have a pain but somehow that pain makes > them too blind to see the pain of others. > --Farzin > Not all women who consider themselves 'liberated feminists' see feminism as a war with men. I (a woman) clearly see the pain of a sexist society on both men and women. I think Jamie's comment could apply to your generalization as well.
flaps@utcs.uucp (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/13/85)
In article <41@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >> Men have been dictating what is maculine and feminine >>throughout time.... > If men controlled everything for their own good: >- men alone wouldn't be sent off to their deaths in war Ha! You don't think the army is controlled by men?? Women are not permitted to die in war because they are not considered worthy of the honour. To you and me perhaps it would not be an honour at all to die for some stupid government. But to many men throughout history it has been. Megabytes have been written about how glorious it is to die in war. If you disagree, give me any number of K-bytes and I will post MORE than that many K-bytes of "I would like to die in war" stuff, all authentic etc.
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/15/85)
> > They (women) see feminism as a war with men on one side and women > > on the other. Undeniably, they have a pain but somehow that pain makes > > them too blind to see the pain of others. > > --Farzin > > > Not all women who consider themselves 'liberated feminists' see feminism ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ > as a war with men. I (a woman) clearly see the pain of a sexist society ^^ ^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ > on both men and women. I think Jamie's comment could apply to your > generalization as well. Perhaps. But all too often, that is the impression given. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (10/19/85)
In article <915@utcs.uucp> flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >If you disagree, give me any number of K-bytes and I will post MORE than >that many K-bytes of "I would like to die in war" stuff, all authentic etc. OK. You've got a gogolplex K-bytes. Have at it! :-) -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr