tschneider@watarts.UUCP (09/13/83)
I once joined a Women`s Centre on my campus, hoping to make some use of my time by helping out the cause of women. (I'm male.) Actually, it wasn't as liberal-guilt-catharsis as all that, but nevertheless... After a while, the Centre's volunteers got involved in a Take BAck The Night march which was restricted to women. I raised a fuss about this -- sent a letter to the student newspaper calling the supporters of such a strategy "feminist fascists" -- and promptly found myself persona non grata around there. I was bitter about this for a long, long time. Then I realized that I was learning a couple of good things, the hard way. One, was that the women's struggle is *primarily* a woman's struggle, and that my energy, aid or whatever should only be employed to their ends when enlisted by them. It's presumtuous and arrogant to assume the plight without securing some sort of accord first. Secondly, it made me reflect on the very basis of feminism -- that *women* are in a poor state because of sexism, and that all men benefit and all women lose because of this prejudice. Sound too extremist to you, too narrow-minded a picture of that sociakl movement? Well, then explain to me why the root word is "fem". If the movenment really cared about changing both sex' behaviour and attitudes, it would take on another name that would reflect the dual-gender concern it supposedly has. Please take note that I am not anti-feminist, just anti-terminology. Any further comments out there? Todd Schneider UniWaterloo
ellis@FLAIRMAX.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/20/83)
Apologies to those who feel this belongs elsewhere, but I contend net.women
is the place for my continued ravings about children, mostly because this
group is where men and women frequently discuss topics central to the
`women's movement'. Anyway, to continue...
Traditional roles for men and women do not exist because of some `male
conspiracy' to keep women down. They exist because they've solved the
problems of survival and reproduction better than any other social pattern
to emerge (yet) -- evolution, pure and simple. A new solution that produced
more creative, fertile, vigorous, and open-minded offspring would easily
wipe out the old decaying `chauvinistic' paradigm.
To date, however, most feminist proposals have been rejected by society
at large. Even so obvious an idea as ERA has been shot down largely
through the efforts of women themselves! And I believe the women's
movement will remain the ineffective force it's devolved into until a
satisfactory new solution has been found for the problems of child
nurturing. The most popular feminist alternatives are either no
children at all -- clearly an evolutionary dead end -- or dual-career
send'em-to-daycare-centers marriages, which my experience leads me to
believe, breed neglected, emotionally deprived, scientifically produced
clones, who, I feel, are less likely to have or even want families.
For a movement with the visionary intentions of women's lib to truly
succeed, it must produce many happy, well adjusted children.
Elitist hardcore libbers may not be pleased, but I'm afraid the time
may have come to start treating sympathetic men as equals. I found
Todd Schneider's experience (which is hardly unique) with feminism
quite to the point...
> ...the Centre's volunteers got involved in a Take Back The Night march
> which was restricted to women. I raised a fuss about this... and
> promptly found myself persona non grata around there.
> ...
> [I found that] the women's struggle is *primarily* a woman's struggle,
> and that my energy, aid or whatever should only be employed to their
> ends when enlisted by them.
> ...
> If the movement really cared about changing both sex' behaviour and
> attitudes, it would take on another name that would reflect the
> dual-gender concern it supposedly has.
How many men out there are going to don aprons and change diapers when
confronted with this kind of encouragement?
A family model in which men and women share equally in ALL family
responsibilities must become the focus of the movement. If you destroy
the role of `nurturing mother', you must replace it with an equal or
superior alternative. A balanced marriage, with husband and wife
alternating between breadwinner/homekeeper is the only solution that
comes to mind. And its totally fulfilled parental roles most definitely
provide superior examples for children to emulate.
This may require the women's movement to split between the most
radical, man-and-home hating elements and the more moderate potential
mothers. The second group is the only one with anything worthwhile to
teach men, anyway.
It would be a tragedy if the women's movement were responsible for the
loss of that short period in our life (the 1st 6 years) free from the
supervision of anonymous bureaucrats, institutions, and `teachers',
when it could instead blossom into a `human lib' movement whose purpose
is to merge the best of both sexes into total human beings.
-michael `John Lennon lives' ellissmb@achilles.UUCP (09/22/83)
There is no feminist doctrine that says child-rearing is inherently bad, degrading, or worthless. What feminism says is that the choice of who does what should not be made on the basis that "girls [sic] are naturally suited for homemaking, and men aren't". It also says that such work is not highly valued by our society, either financially or in status -- have you ever heard the phrase "*just* a housewife" [emphasis mine]? (Note the difference between "inherently worthless" and "not valued by society".) A woman who *wants* to stay home with her children should feel free to, though as a practical matter (given the prevailing attitudes in our society) she should consider whether this is what she wants to do, or what others expect of her. Similarly, a man should have the same choices, and he should go through a similar self-analysis -- he shouldn't be afraid to stay home with his children because his friends think it weird. Finally, if a couple together should decide that day care is undesirable, unsuitable, or simply unavailable for their children, there should be no presumption that it's the woman who should stay home and delay or sacrifice her career. The notion that our current set of sex roles are "evolutionarily better" I find at best unproved, and most likely false. And of course, most of what I said above applies equally well to career choices. That's what feminism is really all about: freedom of choice. --Steve