tracy (11/20/82)
One of the more depressing pieces of news I heard recently was that a good
friend of mine had become a feminist. Not your average "I support the
general idea of women as human beings" feminist, but a genuine, fight-them-
in-the-trenches party-line feminist.
I, personally, have no objection to women rebelling against past injustice
and present injustice and indifference. I will, indeed, do my bit to help.
I doubt the essential sanity of people who see women as anything but complete
self-determined members of the human race. Few things (axe murderers excluded)
disgust me as much as hearing of some of my male relatives "forbidding" their
wives to work, requiring that their wives have their permission to go out, etc.
This is especially terrible because these people do not do it because they
percieve themselves simply as the dominant member of the household: they do
it because (you guessed it) their wives are female and thereby seen as the
weaker (more childlike, owned [revolting concept]) member of the household.
They are seen as something less than human. I find it hard to express my
revulsion towards this adaquately.
I also doubt the essential sanity of "party-line" feminists (and possibly
feminism (as a political force) as a whole). [fun to parse that, wasn't it?]
Some of the attitudes that my feminist friends (and non-friends) have had
include:
- men cannot possibly understand or help with female problems,
especially those involving:
- rape,
- wife beating,
- inferior economic, social, and political status
- all men are the same, and have the same attitudes
- women must solve their own problems WITHOUT men
- men are, in general, out to repress women, and can't help
doing it by their very natures
- men should be seen as the "enemy"
- women should be seen as the "friend"
Women live in a society consisting of 1/2 men. It is foolish to believe
that a lasting, healthy, SANE, solution to women's problems can be found
purely within the context of women. It is equally foolish to believe that
a solution can be obtained by casting the struggle into an "adversary"
position, with the goal that women will "win" and men will "lose".
I am personally convinced that the human race is an adolescent race. We
have emerged from childhood with the realization that we can collectively
establish some sort of goals, some "worthwhile" attainable condition. My
view is that those goals should be "humanist" goals: the happiness, dignity,
and worth of every person [in a mature society] becomes the interest of
every individual. People will be treated as people rather than "objects".
I am not an idealist to the extent that I think humanity
will attain utopia. But certainly a state where people are not educated to
think (implicitly) that they are in a state of war with every other human
on the planet would be nice. I object to external manipulation from the
media, and from other people. I object to people trying to take advantage
of me in order to further their own goals. I THINK HUMANITY IS CAPABLE OF
MUCH BETTER!!! I would like to personally set a good example (I am still
learning how).
With all this in mind, It is sad to note that rather than realizing that
the feminist problem is a symptom of something much more vast, and JOINING
with Humanity to change it, some feminists have taken the stand that
"the only gains to be made for women will be made in spite of men, by women".
I would go so far to state that this sort of feminism is a crime against
humanity. I do not exonerate current attitudes: I think that the
"traditional" male view is equally criminal.
My rabid feminist friend claimed that no male could comfort a rape victim.
What hogwash! Women are being convinced that men are the enemy. All
men do not rape. Rapists rape. A close male friend of mine once suffered
a demeaning assault by four other men (non-sexual). While I am not saying
that his assault was as bad as being raped, HE, LIKE A RAPE VICTIM, WAS
TREATED AS AN OBJECT, NOT A HUMAN BEING. He was quite emotionally
shattered. I talked with him just after the incident (he was crying in a
phone booth somewhere) and was shocked. Who is more prepared to empathize
with a rape victim? The male friend who was assaulted? Or the female
friend who, while she has never been assaulted, can imagine nothing worse
than rape? (Men can imagine castration). Arguments which claim that the
woman is more suited on the grounds that the man will be seen by the victim
as the "enemy" play right into my hands. MEN SHOULD BE SEEN AS HUMANS,
AND NOT POTENTIAL RAPISTS (an "object").
I personally urge everyone to become "mature humans". See ALL other
humans (unless proved otherwise) as HUMANS. Reject feminism as the
ill-conceived stop-gap that it is. We don't need more adversary situations.
We need more people who believe that a human should always be treated
with respect, as a sentient, feeling creature, instead of a "thing",
or a "consumer" or a "patron" or a "[you name it]".
I do not think that women (read feminists) should selflessly give up the
battle for others to see them as humans. I simply think that they should
take a different attitude towards the eventual solution. Sure, fight
for women. But fight for humanity at the same time! And certainly
FIGHT BESIDE MEN.
Tracy Tims (all flames, comments, hate and love mail invited).
(...decvax!hcr!tracy)
PS. Since the network is heavily male, it might be interesting for people
to forward this diatribe to women, to get a more diverse reaction.peterr (11/21/82)
Joe Jackson's latest album, Night and Day, contains a song called "Real Men", which is a good comment on the situation as a whole and ends with "and if there's war between the sexes then there'll be no people left" When I first heard this song, I was with several other people watching a music program (interviews, videos, etc.); this song kept people silent for its duration. Hopefully, this sort of mass education will continue. Sadly, television as a whole has its head buried firmly in the sand on this and many other social/inter-personal issues, when it has great power to raise the issues into public consciousness (and propagandize certain views).
pcl (11/22/82)
An open letter to Tracy Tims (hcr!tracy): Let me set the context for the following by saying that I am a (male) member of the National Organization for Women (N.O.W), and consider myself a feminist. I agree with all your arguments against your target, but strongly DISAGREE with your identification of that target as "feminism" (un-modified). The brand of feminism you seem to be reacting to is sometimes labeled "man-eating feminism". There are indeed proponents of this extreme; one that I remember from one of my classes was "The SCUM Manifesto" (SCUM = Society to Cut Up Men), as well as some RADICAL lesbian organizations. I also remember some of the writings of Robin Morgan verging on (or taking) this position. However, THIS IS NOT MAIN-STREAM FEMINISM! If you want a good exposure to contemporary feminism, pick up a few issues of "Ms." magazine. High-quality stuff. Decidedly feminist. Definitely activist. But not at all the divisive, antagonistic perspective you attack in your article. One note on the extreme perspective you describe. As I understand it, one of the "classical" stages of the consciousness-raising (CR) process is rage. Rage at all of the injustices, the degrading practices, the powerless-ness of women, and the fact that it has gone on so long. And more. While (first) feeling this rage, anti-male attitudes such as you describe are quite likely (even among males). But this is just one stage of CR, and is usually supplanted by a more determined, and balanced, perspective before long. Paul Lustgarten Bell Labs - Indian Hill ixn5c!pcl
woods@sri-unix (11/22/82)
I have to agree with everything you said. I think at the beginning feminism
was a healthy force, because it drew attention to the special problems of women,
however I too think that the radical feminists are hurting their own cause by
their failure to *actively* enlist the help of favorably-disposed males.
A good example of this is the recent defeat of the ERA. It is clear from
the existence of Phyllis Schlafly (sp?) and others like her that the women are
not 100% behind the ERA concept (after all, increased freedom does mean
increased responsibility, doesn't it?). Therefore the rest of the women who
favor the ERA are a minority of the population as a whole. This means that it
*will not* pass unless some men also support it. of course there are indeed
many men (including myself) who do support the ERA concept. However the hostile
attitude of most (but not all--no flames please) feminists has kept me from
becoming actively involved in a cause that generates my whole-hearted support
in a way that no other issue (except the nuclear arms race but I don't want
to start a discussion of that here) can. The feeling seems to be as stated in
the original article on this subject, "You are a male, therefore you cannot
possibly understand the special problems of females". THis is partially true,
I can never FEEL what it is like to be raped, but then most women never feel
this either although the fear of it is quite real. Just because I can't actually
feel this fear myself doesn't mean that I can't empathize with it. This is a
relatively small issue compared to the seual discrimination problem, but I was
only using it as an example. I think the defeat of the ERA shows that the
feminists have failed to face reality--they are attempting to change a system
which by their own claims is male-dominated, but they are trying to do it
without the help of the people in "power", i.e. men. Seems like a hopeless
cause to me. I'd like to see the feminists "mellow out" a little and express
a more "pro-female" and less "anti-male" attitude. I think their cause would
be advanced much better with the help of "feminist" males like myself, whose
help could easily be enlisted by simply displaying a more constructive and
realistic attitude.
I can hear the female flames igniting already,
GREG
ucbvax!{hplabs,menlo70}!hao!woods
harpo!siesmo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods