woods (01/26/83)
Christine Guzy (and others too!) needs to realize that like it or
not, the positions of power in our society are currently filled by men.
Since women only make up half the population, and not all of those want
to be "liberated" from homemaking, it should be clear that in order to
get any real progress on women's "liberation", it will be necessary
to *actively* enlist the support and help of men who favor the social
changes you seek. Many feminists I know (this is not a reference to
Christine) seem to have the attitude that "Women's problems should be
solved by women. Men are the cause of the problem and therefore cannot
be part of the solution". This is bull. It may be true that men have
oppressed women, I don't want to argue about that. The point is
that it doesn't matter. That is all in the past and that is where we
should leave it. The feminists will need the political clout of
favorably-disposed males in order to more easily accomplish the
major social changes they desire. The recent defeat of the ERA, in spite
of the fact that polls show a majority of Americans favor it,
clearly demonstrates this. If we want to get the ERA passed, we
need to work together, males and females on the same side. Forget about
trying to "unite women", that is probably impossible, and phrases like
that tend to draw hostile reactions from the very people whose support
we need. There are too many Phyllis Schlafly's out there for the women
to do it all on their own. We have to get out of this female vs. male
mentality. It is very destructive. Let's work together and always remember
that "women's lib" is really a misnomer. What we really want is an end
to sex-role stereotyping. I'm for the freedom to be *human* regardless
of whether you happen to be male or female.
Hooray for androgyny,
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodswoods (01/27/83)
No one suggested that you should "wait for men to do it". And indeed it IS
our responsibility to enlist the help of anyone, regardless of sex or race,
who could conceivably help us accomplish our objectives. By "we" I mean anyone
who is strongly committed to the ERA and what it stands for. In any movement for
any kind of social change, it is ALWAYS up to those most committed to kick the
less motivated in the butt and get them moving. Otherwise they rarely get up
at all, or will get up in response to a stronger kick from those on the other
side of the issue. The ERA will not be won or lost by a handful of radical
feminists, nor by a handful of mindless idiots like Phyllis Schlafly (it's
not hard to tell which side I'M on, is it :-} ). It will be won in the trenches
by your average American, and that includes the males as well.
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodsmmt (01/29/83)
The important reason why men and women should work together for "women's lib" is that there can be no one-sided liberation. Men are bound by the past (and present) oppression of women. It is true, as Greg Woods says, that practical politics dictates that women have to enlist the help of men in achieving equality of opportunity (God forbid we should have equality of everything: we don't want everybody to be the same). To me, this practical point is secondary to the point that it is "people lib" that counts, and pure "women's lib" is just as oppressive as what it aims to replace. Martin Taylor
wm (01/29/83)
It would seem that the discussion about whether men should be involved in "women's lib" is a moot point. Most of the discussion in this group seems to be from men! Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill