obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark) (05/14/91)
This notesfile seems to see lots of contention about whether it is
possible to be sexist toward a man, and I am finding myself so confused at
the moment that I am wondering what this has to do with feminism.
Most folks here seem to be of one of two opinions regarding this
issue, either they believe that men are not oppressed *as* men, or they
believe that somehow the oppression of men offsets the oppression of women to
some degree, and that feminism must concern itself with addressing all
oppression based upon the division of sexes. I find myself reacting rather
violently to both of these positions, and reading the information that
supposedly supports either of them usually only convinces me of the writer's
lack of understanding of the opposite sex's oppression.
Let me first explain my use of the term oppression. To be oppressed,
one need not have an oppressor, only have others consistently act on untrue
assumptions about you based on some irrelevant criterion in a way which harms
you and alienates you from them. When there is an oppressor this is easy to
identify. The oppressor spreads lies which "defend" their harmful actions and
alienate them from the oppressed so that they don't have to deal with the
direct effects of those lies or those actions. But this is not the only
mechanism for oppression.
Men are in fact needlessly hurt by our society in ways that women, in
general, are not. We are trained in violence early and are expected to treat
each other brutally, without sympathy (I have never seen girls forced to
wrestle, or allowed to "fight out" an argument that could easily be addressed
otherwise "because it is good for them.") We are expected to be completely
self-sufficient in all ways except emotionally (I have seen *many* more 16
year old boys thrown out on the street than 16 year old girls, and three-
quarters of the homeless are men.) We are used as tools, with no concern for
our willingness or personal safety (contact sports, dangerous industries, and
military service are domains where men predominate currently. And in the past
hunting and warfare have been *mandatory* parts of "manhood." The work
required of women at the same time may have been as hard or harder, but was
generally less dangerous.) We are indoctrinated into a compulsive,
performance-oriented sexuality... And I could go on, but a tally of men's woes
is not my point, and doesn't belong in soc.feminism anyway. This list is only
to show that things happen which hurt men *as a class*.
But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom are women
its source. And though individual women can use it to their advantage, so can
individual men. So that women *as a class* gain nothing from its existence.
The oppression creates "handles" that allow men to be used as efficient,
dispassionate, expendable tools without any obligation of actual human contact
on the users part. But these handles are open to male hands as easily as to
female hands, and men tend to abuse them more often than women do.
The oppression of women is of a different order. It creates a
definite privilege state for men and works largely, though not exclusively,
through male hands.
Using a definition of sexism which lumps these two together creates
major problems by hiding the completely different natures of the two styles of
oppression. So I use "sexism" only in the sense of the oppression of women by
men, because this form involves the creation of a power imbalance between the
sexes, parallel to the power imbalance racism creates between races. And I
understand feminism to be concerned only with sexism in this definition.
Men often choose the compound definition of sexism, however, because
it puts them in a better light. They can claim that sexism is somehow
"equally unfair all around." This is obvious bullshit, but it floats down
this stream quite often. And discouragingly enough, it seems to be the
conviction of some of the folks writing here.
On the other hand, the problem *does* exist. And feminist writers
often disbelieve in the oppression of men as a class. The only feminists I
have read who think men are hurt at all by the division of the sexes label
men's oppression as a side effect of the oppressor role, denying that men can
be hurt as a class other than by themselves. (Sorry, I just thought of an
exception -- Barbara Deming. The generality fails, but the trend remains.)
This is blaming the victim, and leads to a complete disregard for the truth of
men's lives and the limits on their power.
My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate
issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but
they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track
their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to
purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. On the other hand,
actively insisting that women are "the ones oppressed" and that men's
oppression is either self-inflicted or trivial is buying into the oppression
of men, which is just as real as sexism.turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (05/14/91)
----- In article <1991May13.194337.3494@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark) writes: > Men are in fact needlessly hurt by our society in ways that women, > in general, are not. ... Notably absent from Mr Obermark's list are the facts that men are expected to be the family provider, the chief family intermediary with the economic world, and that in the area of romance they are expected to be the pursuer who must "prove his worthiness" to have a sexual relationship. These would provide some challenge to his conclusion: > But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom > are women its source. And though individual women can use it > to their advantage, so can individual men. So that women *as > a class* gain nothing from its existence. ... The above items are ways that men are oppressed for the benefit of women, not other men. It would be fair to say that the ways men as a class benefit from the sexism in our society is greater than the ways women as a class benefit from it, and that (in general) it works to give men greater social status. But it is NOT the all and nothing division that Mr Obermark paints. I think some of the posts to which Mr Obermark reacts were written by people who were reacting to precisely this inaccurate picture. > Using a definition of sexism which lumps these two together > creates major problems by hiding the completely different > natures of the two styles of oppression. ... By Mr Obermark's own definition, men also suffer from the kind of oppression which he thinks deserves the label "sexism". > On the other hand, the problem *does* exist. And feminist > writers often disbelieve in the oppression of men as a class. ... Most feminist writers I have read have been quite sympathetic to this oppression (providing the reader is sympathetic in interpreting their writings). Some emphasize the asymmetry between the sexes in the results and amount of sexism that oppresses them, but I think there is good reason they do so. One can consistently (and accurately) point out that men also suffer from sexism, but that women have gotten the short end of the stick. > ... The only feminists I have read who think men are hurt at > all by the division of the sexes label men's oppression as a > side effect of the oppressor role, denying that men can be > hurt as a class other than by themselves. (Sorry, I just thought > of an exception -- Barbara Deming. ... Let me herald another exception: Marilyn French. No one reading "Beyond Power" can doubt that she is concerned with both sexes, and that she condemns aspects of our social system rather than either gender. Russell
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (05/14/91)
According to obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark): <overall a good summary of arguments about sexism & oppression> > But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom are women >its source. And though individual women can use it to their advantage, so can >individual men. So that women *as a class* gain nothing from its existence. >The oppression creates "handles" that allow men to be used as efficient, >dispassionate, expendable tools without any obligation of actual human contact >on the users part. But these handles are open to male hands as easily as to >female hands, and men tend to abuse them more often than women do. Here I start to disagree with you. If you take, for example, the use of men as military pawns, often (in the case of the draft) against their will, I would argue that women *as a class* do benefit from having men be the only ones on the front lines. In an egalitarian society, a good chunk of the infantry would be women, so in this non-egalitarian society, their places on the front lines and therefore in Arlington National Cemetary are being taken by men. A woman, because she is a woman, knows that she has no risk under our current system of being drafted, and furthermore she knows that should she decide to join the military she will not be assigned to a combat position (this may change soon) > The oppression of women is of a different order. It creates a >definite privilege state for men and works largely, though not exclusively, >through male hands. Saying that the few people who benefit from the oppression of men and women happen to be mostly men is a lot different from saying that there is "a definite privilege state for men." > Using a definition of sexism which lumps these two together creates >major problems by hiding the completely different natures of the two styles of >oppression. So I use "sexism" only in the sense of the oppression of women by >men, because this form involves the creation of a power imbalance between the >sexes, parallel to the power imbalance racism creates between races. And I >understand feminism to be concerned only with sexism in this definition. There are those of us who sincerely believe that the popular feminist comparison between the subjugation of women and the subjugation of blacks just doesn't hold water. Many of us are men who don't hold any particular power in society, and look around to see that the vast majority of our brothers do not hold any power either. You can look at Congress, or the White House, or the CEOs of the Fortune 500, and see a whole lot of male faces there. It is fundamentally inaccurate, however, to reverse the statement "most of the powerful are men" into "most of the men are powerful." It just doesn't work that way. > My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate >issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but >they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track >their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to >purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. On the other hand, >actively insisting that women are "the ones oppressed" and that men's >oppression is either self-inflicted or trivial is buying into the oppression >of men, which is just as real as sexism. My position is that sex roles are oppressive, and that feminism ought to consider this fact the absolute root of their movement. Feminists should neither contribute to this oppression, nor deny inconvenient aspects of it. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems, nor vice versa, but people who are concerned with ending oppressive sex roles should take on this task nonetheless. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "The reemphasis on feminine values...led to a shift in the mode of argument for feminist goals. Instead of arguing for justice or social equality, much feminist polemic now claims a female moral superiority." -- Gayle Rubin
jan@oas.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.194337.3494@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark) writes: > This notesfile seems to see lots of contention about whether it is >possible to be sexist toward a man, and I am finding myself so confused at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the moment that I am wondering what this has to do with feminism. > Most folks here seem to be of one of two opinions regarding this >issue, either they believe that men are not oppressed *as* men, or they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Without getting into some of the excellent points you made, such as the difference between being oppressed because of gender vs. independently of gender, (and other points from the net, such as areas where men *are* oppressed *as* men, at least according to any definition that doesn't try to take the sum total of priviledge as priviledge was defined in 1950), I'd like to point out my discomfort with using sexism or other *ism as synonyms for oppression. I see a big difference between *isms, stereotyping according to *, vs. oppression. For instance, I have met at least one African-American who was at least mildly racist against whites, in that she believed the "blue-eyed-devil" theory that white people are inherently more *ist _for_ _genetic_ _reasons_ than other people. But oppression requires a power structure, and, with the possible exception of a VERY small town, or a household closed to the world, I do not believe that white people can (yet) be oppressed by black people. The confusing of these two issues seems to me to be a degradation of the language, such as back when everyone started saying "I mean, he *literally* killed me!!," or when people use "Christian" to mean "educated" or "fair", and "educated" to mean "mannered," etc. Such strange uses of words cause much confusion, IMHO. That *professors* are doing this upsets me a bit...could the poster from X posts back, who started this thread, ask his/her prof what she meant? (a little late, aren't I....) ~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com or jan@oas.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/15/91)
In article <49629@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes: >I see a big difference between *isms, stereotyping according to *, vs. >oppression. For instance, I have met at least one African-American who >was at least mildly racist against whites, in that she believed the This is MILD racism??? Sounds worse than the Afrikaaners to me... >"blue-eyed-devil" theory that white people are inherently more *ist >_for_ _genetic_ _reasons_ than other people. But oppression requires >a power structure, and, with the possible exception of a VERY small >town, or a household closed to the world, I do not believe that >white people can (yet) be oppressed by black people. Oppression requires *power.* Whether it comes from a "structure," from a religious conviction that sways people, or from the ability to evoke fear in others doesn't matter. Any time a person has power over another person, oppression can result. If I may paraphrase Susan Brownmiller, she makes the argument that men, as a group, oppress women, as a group, with the fear of rape. Where does she get this idea? Undoubtedly, she refers to crime statistics that indicate that a disproportionate number of rape convicts are men. This fact evokes fear in women, so that even if they are never raped, they are still oppressed by their fear. I can use this same argument to claim that blacks oppress everyone, because a disproportionate number of violent crime convicts are black. I choose not to use this argument, because I refuse to be oppressed by fear (and I don't believe conviction rates are a good metric), but those who use it in reference to oppression of women must accept that it may be used in reference to oppression of any group. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May13.194337.3494@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark) writes: > > >self-sufficient in all ways except emotionally (I have seen *many* more 16 >year old boys thrown out on the street than 16 year old girls, and three- >quarters of the homeless are men.) We are used as tools, with no concern for I thought I read in Time magazine near Christmas 1989 that men being the plurality of homeless people was a myth. In fact (if I am remembering the article correctly) women and children were a definite majority of the homeless. I know this doesn't really have much to do with the original posting but I was just curious as to what the latest figures/facts are. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu "If people want to make war they should make a colour war and paint each other's cities up in the night in pinks and greens." Yoko Ono (_Louder than Words_)
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) (05/18/91)
In article <282f3194.17a3@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>, dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: > According to obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark): > <overall a good summary of arguments about sexism & oppression> > >> But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom are women >>its source. And though individual women can use it to their advantage, so can >>individual men. So that women *as a class* gain nothing from its existence. >>The oppression creates "handles" that allow men to be used as efficient, >>dispassionate, expendable tools without any obligation of actual human contact >>on the users part. But these handles are open to male hands as easily as to >>female hands, and men tend to abuse them more often than women do. > > Here I start to disagree with you. If you take, for example, > the use of men as military pawns, often (in the case of the > draft) against their will, I would argue that women *as a > class* do benefit from having men be the only ones on the > front lines. You make a good argument for an egalitarian draft that includes women, but you must realize that here, women are NOT AT THE SOURCE of this male oppression. Women did not make the decision that only men should be drafted. Men made this decision. If you think that this should be changed, I suggest that you write your congressional representatives (who, more than likely, will be male, since there are still few female congressional representatives.) > A woman, > because she is a woman, knows that she has no risk under our > current system of being drafted, and furthermore she knows > that should she decide to join the military she will not be > assigned to a combat position (this may change soon) First of all, let's remember that NO ONE has been drafted since the mid-seventies. Certainly, only men right now are being required to register with selective service, but I think that if push came to shove, that our congress would actually begin to draft women. I know that on January 16, when the war began, this was a worry of mine, just as it was a worry of my male friends. We spent a lot of time talking about the possibilities. In the end, no one got drafted. Instead, both male and female reservists were activated. And, if you're all upset about women not dying in combat, then please go and check and see if any women died in the Middle East during the war. I'm sure you'll find that even though women did not "officially" serve in combat, many did actually serve in positions that could be considered "combat." Some were taken prisoner. Some died. Also, according to my family's recent copy of the Air Force Times, the first major barrier to women serving in combat has been removed. So, what are you going to do to effect an egalitarian position for women once women are draftable and eligible to serve in combat. Let me tell you, if I'm draftable and eligible to serve in combat, I damn well want ALL my equal rights. > >> My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate >>issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but >>they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track >>their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to >>purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. On the other hand, >>actively insisting that women are "the ones oppressed" and that men's >>oppression is either self-inflicted or trivial is buying into the oppression >>of men, which is just as real as sexism. > > My position is that sex roles are oppressive, and that feminism > ought to consider this fact the absolute root of their movement. > Feminists should neither contribute to this oppression, nor deny > inconvenient aspects of it. Women have no obligation to deal with > men's problems, nor vice versa, but people who are concerned with > ending oppressive sex roles should take on this task nonetheless. Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. Her contention was very similar -- that we have to focus on the problems of men if we are going to ever solve the problems of women. Feminism involves giving /both men and women/ the ability to make their own choices and live with those choices. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (05/22/91)
In article <14905.2833d44d@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: > Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago >and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that >the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. 1) Why is she suddenly so concerned about the subject? 2) What did she offer to men, aside from her "very sincere concern"? Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "It's because he's "concerned," George -- which in today's Esalen- Speak means he's going to be a good liberal and show that he is aware, no disgusted, by these things, but he just can't be bothered to do anything about them. Concerned. That's what it means." -- Clay Bond
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/23/91)
In article <14905.2833d44d@zeus.unomaha.edu> oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: > You make a good argument for an egalitarian draft that includes >women, but you must realize that here, women are NOT AT THE SOURCE of this >male oppression. Women did not make the decision that only men should be >drafted. Men made this decision. If you think that this should be changed, >I suggest that you write your congressional representatives (who, more >than likely, will be male, since there are still few female congressional >representatives.) I've followed this thread for some time, and I still can't see why this is a gender issue. Whether women or men cause discrimination based on sex doesn't matter. The fact that only men must register with the selective service is a *law*, not a gender issue. Who cares whether the legislature that drafted this law was composed of men, women, or 3 toed sloths? In South Africa, ANC supporters in Soweto are being murdered by radical Black Zulus. Is this violence somehow justifiable because it's Black on Black, and would only be condemned if the Afrikaaners were doing the killing? The draft is a discriminatory policy, and should be changed. Seaching for a group to "blame" for the policy seems like wasted effort. >I'm sure you'll find that even though >women did not "officially" serve in combat, many did actually serve in >positions that could be considered "combat." Some were taken prisoner. >Some died. So, how many women died in the Gulf War? How many out of the seventy- something total U.S. deaths? [Sharon says] > My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate >issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but >they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track >their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to >purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. [Then says] > Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago >and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that >the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. Her contention was very >similar -- that we have to focus on the problems of men if we are going to >ever solve the problems of women. Feminism involves giving /both men and >women/ the ability to make their own choices and live with those choices. Are you saying that you don't agree with Gloria Steinem? If not, how do you reconcile these positions? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May21.221824.5781@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: >> In article <14905.2833d44d@zeus.unomaha.edu> oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: >> [Context: I argue that it is not fair to justify discrimination against women >> on the basis that they cannot be drafted or because they cannot serve in >> combat because 1) No one has been drafted since the mid-seventies, male or >> female 2) the decision to force men to register with selective service was >> made by congress, a body composed mostly of men and 3) despite the fact that >> women do not serve combat, this could change very soon, and is pretty much >> a moot point, since many women did serve in the Gulf War in combat areas in >> jobs that were not combat and 4) many women did perform duties which were >> pretty damn close to combat. Alden Gannon then replies: > I've followed this thread for some time, and I still can't see why > this is a gender issue. Whether women or men cause discrimination > based on sex doesn't matter. The fact that only men must register > with the selective service is a *law*, not a gender issue. I thought I made that clear. I merely take offense with those who would argue that women are justifiably denied their equal rights on the basis of 1) not being drafted and 2) not serving in combat. Women are not drafted and they do not serve in combat because a bunch of congressmen in Washington D.C. are afraid that it will cost them their political careers. None of them want to be characterized by their political opponents as "the guy who sent your daughter to be raped by Iraqi soldiers." In essence, we women are being told that we should accept our lot because we do nothing to protect our way of life, but then, we /are/ being denied the ability to fight in combat or being drafted. To me, it doesn't make sense. There are plenty of women (and gays and lesbians for that matter) who are willing to serve, but cannot. > Who cares > whether the legislature that drafted this law was composed of men, > women, or 3 toed sloths? In South Africa, ANC supporters in Soweto > are being murdered by radical Black Zulus. Is this violence somehow > justifiable because it's Black on Black, and would only be condemned > if the Afrikaaners were doing the killing? The draft is a > discriminatory policy, and should be changed. Seaching for a group to > "blame" for the policy seems like wasted effort. I'm not arguing whether the draft is good or bad. I'm not making a judgement about the draft one way or another. I'm merely saying that the justifications used by many to oppress women are not institutionalized by women. Women did not choose to not be drafted or not serve in combat. Someone else chose that for us. Whether or not the draft is right or wrong has nothing to do with this debate. As set up, the draft is a discriminatory policy, but too many people are blaming women for the inherent sexism (against men) in the draft -- but that blame is misdirected. Why punish women (and gays and lesbians) for not serving in combat and for not being drafted -- that is what I'm concerned about here. > So, how many women died in the Gulf War? How many out of the seventy- > something total U.S. deaths? A small number died. I can't remember the exact number -- I have a list of all who died in the Gulf War. The number /was/ less than five, but /of course/ we have to remember that women did not serve in combat positions. Or, at least, most women did not serve in combat positions. One of the pilots who died, I believe, was serving on a mission that was not classified as a combat mission, but essentially /was/ a combat mission. Do you see what I am saying now? We're talking numbers here, but those numbers are skewed because woman are denied the ability to serve in combat. If you argue that less than five women died in the Gulf War and if you argue that that is justification for denying women equal rights, then can't you see that the cards are stacked against women in the first place. (You can't get a job if you don't have any experience, but how do you get experience if you can't get a job is a poor analogy. But do you see where I am coming from?) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) (05/24/91)
In article <674858563@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > In article <14905.2833d44d@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: > >> Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago >>and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that >>the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. > > 1) Why is she suddenly so concerned about the subject? > > 2) What did she offer to men, aside from her "very sincere concern"? Since you ask, Hillel, I'll be glad to answer. I believe that she is "suddenly so concerned about the subject" because -- and I can't provide quotes here or even paraphrases because the talk was quite some time ago -- because in essence, men are victims of sexism just as women are. If women are supposed to be weak, then men are supposed to be strong and this is not necessarily a fair demand. Sexism denies men the pleasure and enjoyment of being nurturing, of caring for their children and being involved in the household. In essence, from what I understood of her talk, sexism stereotypes men just as it stereotypes women. What did she offer besides her "very sincere concern" -- I'm having to stretch way back into my memory because I don't want to represent her out of context -- I believe that the agenda that she was calling for that night was essentially focused upon women, but with the belief that if we truly did establish an egalitarian society, it would be as beneficial for men as it would be for women. I believe that she was focusing mostly upon encouraging nurturance and other such qualities in men. She concentrated a lot upon the home environment. Of course she talked a lot about pro-choice. To be honest, this was primarily a "cheer-leading" event. She didn't discuss anything too terribly new, as we are out in the sticks. But I believe if you read Ms., you would find those views pretty much reflected in her talk. I just think it is unfair to characterize Gloria Steinem as a total man-basher. I didn't get that impression /at all/. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (05/29/91)
In article <282f3194.17a3@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: > According to obermark@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Jon Obermark): > <overall a good summary of arguments about sexism & oppression> >> But if you investigate men's oppression you note that seldom are >>women its source. And though individual women can use it to their >>advantage, so can individual men. So that women *as a class* gain nothing >>from its existence. The oppression creates "handles" that allow men to >>be used as efficient, dispassionate, expendable tools without any >>obligation of actual human contact on the users part. But these handles >>are open to male hands as easily as to female hands, and men tend to >>abuse them more often than women do. > Here I start to disagree with you. If you take, for example, > the use of men as military pawns, often (in the case of the > draft) against their will, I would argue that women *as a > class* do benefit from having men be the only ones on the > front lines. In an egalitarian society, a good chunk of > the infantry would be women, so in this non-egalitarian > society, their places on the front lines and therefore in > Arlington National Cemetary are being taken by men. A woman, > because she is a woman, knows that she has no risk under our > current system of being drafted, and furthermore she knows > that should she decide to join the military she will not be > assigned to a combat position (this may change soon) Why do you assume that this it is a benefit to women to be discriminated against by the military? I know of at least two women of my acquaintance who were upset that they were not *allowed* to be involved in the combat in the Gulf. The women who do choose a career in the military are not given the same opportunities, rights, etc. as men. This certainly isn't a benefit to them. In addition, I and my female friends do not sit around and gloat/feel secure/whatever because we cannot be drafted, any more than I suppose most men sit around and gloat over how they ("as a class") get paid so much more, on average, than women. Discrimination against women, even to "protect" them, is not of benefit to them. The point is not that women are in a "privileged" position because so many fewer of them die in combat, but that they are not allowed to make that choice for themselves, so they are kept in a subordinate/"child"/protected position. We don't benefit from the government making decisions "for our own good." I don't want to see anyone drafted, or anyone serving in the military or in combat, but if people are/do, I think that women should be treated equally with men. Muffy
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May21.221824.5781@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: Alden Gannon says that I said: > [Sharon says] >> My position is that men are oppressed, but that that is a separate >>issue from feminism. Feminists should not contribute to this oppression, but >>they need not confuse it with their own goals, or allow it to side-track >>their thinking. Women have no obligation to deal with men's problems or to >>purposely skirt issues that may cause conflicts with men. And compares this with what I know I did say: > [Then says] >> Interesting. I went to hear Gloria Steinem speak a few months ago >>and something that she was very sincerely concerned about was the fact that >>the feminist movement has ignored men for so long. Her contention was very >>similar -- that we have to focus on the problems of men if we are going to >>ever solve the problems of women. Feminism involves giving /both men and >>women/ the ability to make their own choices and live with those choices. Now, maybe I did say the first quote. If I did, I need to know the context in which I did say it. I went back and looked at the last post I made to this newsgroup, which included the first post as a third generation quote but it's not clear who said it. If I /did/ say it, I need to know the context in which I said it. Well, I do believe that men are oppressed and that oppression is a result of the oppression of women. But I think that men will stop being oppressed when they stop oppressing women. I don't think I've ever oppressed a man. If he's felt oppressed -- I think it is more the result of society's oppression of me as a woman than it is because I, personally, have oppressed him. Case in point: if a man feels oppressed because social convention dictates that he hold the door open for me, then it is the sexist social convention which is oppressing him. Not me. I don't insist that any man hold the door open for me. (I used to be upset when a man held the door open for me, but if he chooses to oppress himself through social convention, then that's his choice.) I don't remember the context of the first quote, but I think that it is reconcilable with the second. The first says that women need to be concerned with their own empowerment first and men's empowerment second. That's not saying that men are inferior or less worthy of consideration. Men /do/ hold the power in this society and therefore women do have to be concerned with gaining equality first. If men /feel/ oppressed by feminism, that is because men are unwilling to give up their unfair share of power. I think that the whole <PC Controversy> was invented by men who feel intimidated by women who are truly outspoken and empowered. Some men have realized that the accusation of discrimination can indeed be powerful and have begun to use this very powerful rhetoric in order to silence women and effectively keep them in their place. I personally would idealistically call myself a humanist, but I realize that for humanistic principles to take over -- where men and women are equal -- there has to be more take on the part of women and more give on the part of men because I believe women have been doing a lot more giving and men having been doing a lot more taking. If men did more giving, they would be more emotional and nurturing, and then they would enjoy what Steinem was talking about in the second quote. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/30/91)
In article <15266.283c2ad5@zeus.unomaha.edu> oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: >In article <1991May21.221824.5781@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: [I present 2 quotes that I attribute to Sharon and challenge as contradictory] > Now, maybe I did say the first quote. If I did, I need to know > the context in which I did say it. I went back and looked at the > last post I made to this newsgroup, which included the first post > as a third generation quote but it's not clear who said it. If I > /did/ say it, I need to know the context in which I said it. Whoops! I guess I don't really know if Sharon said the first quote. My apologies. > Well, I do believe that men are oppressed and that oppression is > a result of the oppression of women. But I think that men will stop > being oppressed when they stop oppressing women. I don't think I've > ever oppressed a man. If he's felt oppressed -- I think it is more > the result of society's oppression of me as a woman than it is > because I, personally, have oppressed him. Based on my experiences, and those of many other men, men do not feel oppressed by women per se. In fact, oppression is prehaps too strong a term. Men feel *disadvantaged* in at least the following areas in society: 1. The draft (this one is more like oppression). 2. Parental choice (Women have it, men don't). 3. Alimony, child support, and custody. 4. Rape and domestic abuse law. 5. Affirmative Action for only women and minorities. 6. Hate crimes against gay men (this one *is* oppression). I challenge Sharon to produce a list of ways women feel oppressed and show how alleviating that oppression will also address the above six points. As for being the *cause* of these inequalities, consider the "liberal" Afrikaaners that say they are not the cause of the systematic oppression of Blacks. Sharon lives in this country and enjoys many of its benefits. By not actively standing out against these inequalities, Sharon tacitly supports them. Indeed, without supporters of the status quo, the opposition would easily rectify the imbalance, but this country's policies are dictated by the will of voting constituencies (*not* men) consisting of a majority of women. Any time you vote for someone who favors free choice for women and *no* choice for men, you are contributing to the oppression of men, whether you are a man or a woman. > Case in point: if a man > feels oppressed because social convention dictates that he hold the > door open for me, then it is the sexist social convention which > is oppressing him. Not me. I don't insist that any man hold the > door open for me. (I used to be upset when a man held the door open > for me, but if he chooses to oppress himself through social convention, > then that's his choice.) It sounds like *you* were oppressed by your anger. Perhaps he was rewarded by his act of charity (that you didn't want) with warm feelings. When I hold a door open for someone, I consider it a common courtesy that I would like returned if *I* was carrying an armload of groceries. Being courteous is not being oppressed. > I don't remember the context of the first quote, but I think that > it is reconcilable with the second. The first says that women need to > be concerned with their own empowerment first and men's empowerment > second. That's not saying that men are inferior or less worthy of > consideration. Men /do/ hold the power in this society and therefore > women do have to be concerned with gaining equality first. If men > /feel/ oppressed by feminism, that is because men are unwilling to > give up their unfair share of power. I think that the whole <PC > Controversy> was invented by men who feel intimidated by women who are > truly outspoken and empowered. Some men have realized that the > accusation of discrimination can indeed be powerful and have begun to > use this very powerful rhetoric in order to silence women and > effectively keep them in their place. If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? Why is it in the interests of men to create AA, or sexist abuse laws? Men do *not* hold sovereignty (in the Rouseauian sense). It is held by powerful voting constituencies; one of which is NOW. On the subject of the <PC Controversy>, Sharon must be speaking of a different issue than I do when discussing this topic. The main thrust of the anti-PC argument is that PC people and institutions (most notably academic ones) strive to *silence* opposing viewpoints. I, being a member of that camp, encourage empowerment and outspokeness of any minority view, and in this forum, that includes Sharon's. > I personally would idealistically call myself a humanist, but I > realize that for humanistic principles to take over -- where > men and women are equal -- there has to be more take on the part > of women and more give on the part of men because I believe women > have been doing a lot more giving and men having been doing a lot > more taking. If men did more giving, they would be more emotional > and nurturing, and then they would enjoy what Steinem was talking > about in the second quote. It's hard to debate this academically, because Sharon doesn't provide an example of just what is being taken and given. However, Sharon does seem to equate emotional and nurturing with good. There is no reason to catagorically assume this. Hitler was an emotional man. Being nurturing isn't necessarily good, either. A species that protects its weak members to the unneeded danger of its strong members will inevitably face extinction. Is extinction a good? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/30/91)
In article <15266.283c2ad5@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: #ever solve the problems of women. Feminism involves giving /both men and #women/ the ability to make their own choices and live with those choices. Sure... > more taking. If men did more giving, they would be more emotional > and nurturing, and then they would enjoy what Steinem was talking > about in the second quote. All of this from the woman who posted an article why "young boys" [sic] should have no choice in case of birth control failure. I don't think that y'all want a situation where men will have a choice to do what they want; you prefer that men will only have a choice to do what *you* want.
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/30/91)
In article <15264.283c2534@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: > Women are not drafted and they do not serve in combat because a > bunch of congressmen in Washington D.C. are afraid that it will > cost them their political careers. The one who renew men's registration for draft was Carter - the same guy who pushed affirmative action so hard and got feminist support. NOW had nothing to say about that *when* it could matter, (before 1980 election) and it does not speak about the subject now. > None of them want to be > characterized by their political opponents as "the guy who sent > your daughter to be raped by Iraqi soldiers." Especially when 53% of the voters are women...
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/30/91)
In article <MUFFY.91May24155156@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >Discrimination against women, even to "protect" them, is not of benefit >to them. The point is not that women are in a "privileged" position >because so many fewer of them die in combat, but that they are not >allowed to make that choice for themselves, so they are kept in a >subordinate/"child"/protected position. We don't benefit from the >government making decisions "for our own good." Excuse me? And men have a better choice? I can simply choose not to participate in a war, huh? Men cannot choose for themselves whether they want to kill people and be killed in some foreign land. Women cannot choose for themselves whether they want to stay home and tend victory gardens. So who has the better deal "for their own good?" -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.183550.484@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes:
Men cannot choose for themselves whether they want to kill people and be
killed in some foreign land. Women cannot choose for themselves whether
they want to stay home and tend victory gardens. So who has the better
deal "for their own good?"
So, to carry this line of argument further - it is obviously better to
not work (= not be in combat positions) than it is to go out and deal
with the stress of working (= be in combat positions). So, the
government should make laws that women can't hold jobs (= combat
positions). This will benefit women, right? While they're at it, they
can make some more laws to benefit women. For example, it is obviously
very dangerous on the streets at night - lots of violent crimes. So, it
is better for women if there are laws to prevent them from going out on
the street at night. Heck, it's better if they don't go out at all,
since *some* crimes are committed in the daytime. So, how about some
laws that women can't go out of the house? After all, now that they
can't work, why would they need to? Also, most foods are pretty
dangerous to your health. Ice cream has all that sugar and fat. Coffee
is full of caffeine. Meat is full of chemicals, antibiotics, and such.
Cooked meat can also be carcinogenic. So, how about laws for what women
can eat? It's surely "better for them" not to eat potentially dangerous
foods.
Muffygazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/31/91)
In article <15263.283c1f6f@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Sharon L. O'Neil) writes: > Since you ask, Hillel, I'll be glad to answer. I believe that > she is "suddenly so concerned about the subject" because -- and ^^^^^^^^ > I can't provide quotes here or even paraphrases because the talk > was quite some time ago -- because in essence, men are victims of > sexism just as women are. That has always been true, but why *SUDDENLY* Steinem is so concerned? > for that night was essentially focused upon women, but with the > belief that if we truly did establish an egalitarian society, it > would be as beneficial for men as it would be for women. Since you will never establish an egalitarian society, you can always give promises for the future... I asked what she has to offer to men *now*. > environment. Of course she talked a lot about pro-choice. Did a person who is so "deeply concern" about men has a single word to say about choice-for-men in a case of birth control failure? Where's the beef? > I just think it is unfair to characterize Gloria Steinem as a total > man-basher. I didn't get that impression /at all/. I'd not use the term "men-basher"; "don't care about men" will be a more accurate term, even if she expressed "her deep concern"... > Sharon L. O'Neil | Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier (the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving life force." -- Ms. magazine, March 1989
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May29.183550.484@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: > In article <MUFFY.91May24155156@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >>Discrimination against women, even to "protect" them, is not of benefit >>to them. The point is not that women are in a "privileged" position >>because so many fewer of them die in combat, but that they are not >>allowed to make that choice for themselves, so they are kept in a >>subordinate/"child"/protected position. We don't benefit from the >>government making decisions "for our own good." > > Excuse me? And men have a better choice? I can simply choose not to > participate in a war, huh? > Men cannot choose for themselves whether they want to kill people and be > killed in some foreign land. Women cannot choose for themselves whether > they want to stay home and tend victory gardens. So who has the better > deal "for their own good?" I agree BUT I think it is unfair to blame women for this. As I have stated /over and over/ again: women did not choose not to be drafted. Congress did. If you have a problem with the way that current draft policy is set, then you really should call your congressman or state representative and make your feelings known. Patricia Schroeder is currently trying to get the armed forces to allow women to serve in combat. I read a very, very interesting editorial in the May 30, 1991 USA Today by this woman who is also a member of the House of Representatives. She argues that women should be able to serve in combat and that the rules excluding women are antiquated, especially when it comes to the Air Force. In the Gulf War, women were not allowed to fly combat aircraft, but they were allowed to fly unarmed, noncombat planes in enemy territory. In other words, they did things like fly supplies in combat territory. If a woman can fly a supply plane in combat territory, why can't she fly a combat plane? As Schroeder points out, the plane doesn't know if a male or a female is operating the craft. Hillel points out that President Carter pushed a male registration in the seventies. Yes, quite true, Hillel. I remember that. I also remember that there was some debate as to whether women would be included and I think that the reason Carter ended up pushing the male registration is because he knew that a male/female registration would never pass through Congress. He wanted a registration and he took what he could get. Alden -- why aren't women going to be drafted anytime soon? I'll tell you why. I think that we are in quite a conservative backlash in this country, for one thing. And I think that our society has a view of women that is much too patronizing and protective. I agree with you that a Male Draft isn't fair. I just don't think you're putting the blame for the situation on the right people. Blame the politicians. Don't blame the women. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/01/91)
# Men cannot choose for themselves whether they want to kill people and be # killed in some foreign land. Women cannot choose for themselves whether # they want to stay home and tend victory gardens. So who has the better # deal "for their own good?" In article <MUFFY.91May29145633@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >So, to carry this line of argument further - it is obviously better to >not work (= not be in combat positions) than it is to go out and deal >with the stress of working (= be in combat positions). The issue is that it is better not to work then to work as a slave. Somehow, the feminists who try (and sometimes succeed) to give women more opportunities in the army have very little to say/do/change about the men-only registration for draft.
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (06/01/91)
In <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: ... >If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? Why is it in the >interests of men to create AA, or sexist abuse laws? Men do *not* hold >sovereignty (in the Rouseauian sense). It is held by powerful voting >constituencies; one of which is NOW. Let me make a minor point here. I have never seen men stop themselves from oppressing men. In the last point you made, actual beating up of gay men is done by men in probably 99% of the cases (I am *not* dismissing the impact of female homophobia) -- when is the last time you heard about a gang of women beating a suspected homosexual up? My question then becomes, how do you attribute the causes behind your six points TO WOMEN? Or, more accurately, only to women? Why is it that the idea of men holding power means to you that *no* men will suffer? (Is it because you think that no women will suffer if women hold power?) --Cindy
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/01/91)
In article <9105311127.aa07895@ics.uci.edu> tittle@alexandre-dumas.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >Let me make a minor point here. I have never seen men stop themselves >from oppressing men. In the last point you made, actual beating up of >gay men is done by men in probably 99% of the cases (I am *not* >dismissing the impact of female homophobia) -- when is the last time >you heard about a gang of women beating a suspected homosexual up? The point is different. Gang members tend to be more hostile and violent when their girlfriends are around. Being oppressive toward other men is a good way to give the girlfriends what they want.
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (06/01/91)
In article <9105311127.aa07895@ics.uci.edu> tittle@alexandre-dumas.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >In <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: >... >>If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? Why is it in the >>interests of men to create AA, or sexist abuse laws? Men do *not* hold >>sovereignty (in the Rouseauian sense). It is held by powerful voting >>constituencies; one of which is NOW. > >My question then becomes, how do you attribute the causes behind your >six points TO WOMEN? Or, more accurately, only to women? Why is it >that the idea of men holding power means to you that *no* men will >suffer? (Is it because you think that no women will suffer if women >hold power?) Cindy did not read my post carefully. Let me quote some relevant lines from it: "Based on my experiences, and those of many other men, men do not feel oppressed by women per se." "Any time you vote for someone who favors free choice for women and *no* choice for men, you are contributing to the oppression of men, whether you are a man or a woman." ^^^ I do *not* attribute the causes behind my six points to women. I attribute them to voters, many of which are homophobic, and see nothing wrong with beating up gay men. How do you think we got Jesse Helms in office? Men do not hold power. Women do not hold power. Large groups of people with similar opinions hold power. Since 53% of the voters are women, women have more potential for holding power than men. According to Kokee Roberts' analysis on NPR's Morning Edition on May 30, the ongoing debate on the Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. Congress is a good example. Democrats are trying to rally enough support to overturn Bush's veto on the "Damages awarded to women in sex discrimination" issue. Kokee says that the opposition is falling apart because Democrats are not receiving enough support from their constituents (Kokee went so far as to say "from women") to justify the battle. Dismayed democrats were concluding that women just didn't care about discrimination, anymore. So when Bush's veto is sustained, don't go blaming the white male power structure. Instead, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche. USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon
jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: > >Based on my experiences, and those of many other men, men do not feel >oppressed by women per se. In fact, oppression is prehaps too strong a term. >Men feel *disadvantaged* in at least the following areas in society: [List appears below] >I challenge Sharon to produce a list of ways women feel oppressed and show >how alleviating that oppression will also address the above six points. Well, I'm not Sharon, and I *hate* it when men post some blah-de-blah about men's oppression and "challenge the feminists to refute it" because it always seems to lead to flame wars, but thinking about this one led to some food for thought I'd like to share... For each example of men's opression cited, there is a social norm to which women are oppressed to conform, sometimes more strongly and sometimes less strongly, depending on the situation, which is the "other side of the coin," so to speak. >1. The draft (this one is more like oppression). Women showing strength and agression are seen as "unfeminine" at best, and dangerous/insane at worst. Women who might otherwise exhibit such behavior more often are oppressed by social stigma. By changing the view of what types of behavior women can/should exhibit, violent, agressive behavior by women will be seen as possible, even normal in certain circumstances, and in fact, this type of behavior can be *demanded* by the state in times of dire need. As long as society perceives women as incapable of doing the dirty work of military service, it perceives men as the only ones worth drafting. >2. Parental choice (Women have it, men don't). Actually, my response to this one is going in the opposite direction: The current trend it to *take away* women's parental choice as much as possible (e.g. recent supreme court decision, half a dozen states considering anti-abortion laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, etc.) Although the law says one thing (women have choice), social norms still say the opposite (abortion is wrong, or at least of questionable morality). Society tries to enforce gender-based responsibilities w.r.t. pregnancy. As long as society feels that childbirth is of primary importance, regardless of the situations of the parents, this will continue. When society begins to *really* accept the idea that parenthood should be a free choice, not something that must be enforced by the state for "society's own good", I think parental choice will be the norm for both men and women. Working towards freely accepting choice for women will make the opportunity for men to have choice possible: i.e. as long as women "have no choice" (and that is what child support seems to assume), why should society consider giving such choice to men? ["Choice for men" meaning a male has some sort of opportunity to legally absolve himself of the financial and moral responsibilities of parenthood during the same period that the woman could choose "no" and have an abortion. I'm not sure what exact form this would take. Also, I cannot envision the time when a man can choose "yes" over the objections of a woman choosing "no", because it is too great of an invasion of individual privacy and freedom to force a woman to have a child against her will. But, perhaps someday babies can be grown in incubators for these men? Or it will be possible for them to hire surrogate mothers who freely choose this occupation without being coerced by economic desperation? I don't know.] >3. Alimony, child support, and custody. Alimony and child support: are based on the male gender-role that they are the only ones capable of dealing with business, are more rational, are capable of hard work, etc. Women are oppressed by this gender-role when they are turned down for jobs which would "take them away from their families" (even when they don't have children!) or when female-dominated occupations are paid "pin-money" wages, while male-dominated occupations are paid "family" wages. Custody: based on the female gender-role that they are better able to understand children's emotional needs and be more nurturning, etc. These laws are simply ways of enforcing these roles. Once again, by changing the gender roles, society will perceive men as potential nurturers, and women as potential breadwinnders. By fighting the female-gender-stereotypes (and I freely admit many branches of feminism *don't* fight the women-as-nurturers stereotype), society will begin to rethink these laws. Society only sees what it wants to see: if it doesn't want to think that non-conformists exist, they won't be reflected in the law. >4. Rape and domestic abuse law. The law comes from the gender-roles of women-as-weak and men-as-powerful, sometimes too powerful. When the roles expand so that men can be seen as sometimes vulnerable, and women as sometimes too strong, as well, then the laws can be reconsidered and legislatures can talk about women raping men. Once again, due to gender-roles which oppress both men and women, society only sees what it wants to. >5. Affirmative Action for only women and minorities. Like abortion, affirmative action is not something that is fully accepted by society. It's an attempt (like abortion law) to foster change of roles. i.e. to force people to reconsider the ideas of what jobs are "appropriate" or "permissible" for women or minorities. When a woman uses AA to become a soldier (fighting the stereotype of being weak and non-agressive), or a black person uses AA to become a police officer (fighting the stereotype of blacks as criminals) -- this leads to fighting stereotypes, and can put these people in a less-than-bright spot in society. This is at least partly responsible for the controversy surrounding AA. Another problem is that AA, as a law, must be enforced equally throughout the land: in companies which are blatantly discriminatory and companies which are trying their best to be fair, but feel threatened by the possibilities of lawsuits. If there were a way to write the law to force change the discriminatory company without threatening the non-discriminatory one, I would support it. I believe that our lawmakers have tried their best in this regard. On the other hand, I cannot support totally abolishing AA until the discriminatory companies have been forced to truly change. Eventually, AA will outlive its usefulness. This will happen when there is no gender-based and ethnic-based discrimination. Feminism and civil rights movements are clearly trying to end such discrimination. >6. Hate crimes against gay men (this one *is* oppression). Lesbians are also harassed in society. This is an example of society, if not the government, violently enforcing gender-roles. By working to loosen gender-based restrictions and permit a greater variety of behaviors by men and women, feminists, gay rights groups, etc. are trying to combat hate crimes. >If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? While I *do* believe that men hold power (because society-enforced gender-roles have kept women from this power), I *don't* believe that the gender-roles which underlie your 6 points were created solely by men. Most examples "men's oppression" (in quotes because I, too, believe oppression is sometimes too strong a word) are the flip side of "women's oppression" -- which is another way of saying "enforced gender roles cut both ways." As long as certain roles (e.g. being a tough soldier, a primary breadwinner, etc.) are *denied* to women, society must *force* these roles upon the men, by default -- and vice versa, of course. When feminism works to expand roles for women, and thereby change the notions of gender roles, men benefit because they are no longer forced to do everything that women weren't allowed to do. Similarly for certain men's movements changing notions of masculinity allowing women to escape from roles they were forced into because men weren't allowed into certain territories. [I say "certain men's movements" because there are a lot of men's movements, just as there are a lot of women's movements: I'm thinking here of movements to *change* gender roles, not movements to *reinforce* traditions and let men who are being 'emasculated' by current changes "be men again". While the term "feminist" does not encompass reactionary women such as Right to Lifer's, I don't know of a term which distinguishes progressive men's movements from regressive ones.] Sorry this was so long... --Janet -- Janet L. Carson jcarson@cs.washington.edu
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/01/91)
In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu> jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes: >versa, of course. When feminism works to expand roles for women, and >thereby change the notions of gender roles, men benefit because they >are no longer forced to do everything that women weren't allowed to do. This is a nice theory, but the data just doesn't support it. In Carter's time there was choice for women in all the states, affirmative action was enforced and state-ERA was passed in several states. After three years Carter renewed the men-only registration for draft. NOW had nothing to say about that because it did not care about men. I have heard feminists' demands for a crack down on fathers who don't pay child's support, no matter why they don't pay. The fact the women have had a choice for abortion the last 17 years makes no difference for feminist organizations. They also want the choice to take the father to the cleaners, if they feel like that. We hear from the same feminists a demand for affirmative action and a demand for priority in child custody; they really feel that *women* should "have it all." As long as feminist organizations will be able to get what they want, I don't think that they will support men's rights. In a situation like today, when they lose the fight for the "Civil Right Acts", they may express "deep concern" as a way to get more men's support, but I don't think that they have any intention to give up any of women's extra rights. >Janet L. Carson Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The continuation of earnings gap between men and women, the decimation of affirmative action in order to protect white men from `reverse discrimination', the rise of male victories in child custody cases - all of these attest to the need for a way to galvanize women's opposition and women's power in the 1980s." -- ("Caught Looking", Kate Ellis, Barbara O'Dair & Abby Tallmer)
DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) (06/04/91)
In article <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM>, gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) says: >Based on my experiences, and those of many other men, men do not feel >oppressed by women per se. In fact, oppression is prehaps too strong a term. >Men feel *disadvantaged* in at least the following areas in society: > >1. The draft (this one is more like oppression). >2. Parental choice (Women have it, men don't). >3. Alimony, child support, and custody. >4. Rape and domestic abuse law. >5. Affirmative Action for only women and minorities. >6. Hate crimes against gay men (this one *is* oppression). [...stuff deleted...] >If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? Why is it in the >interests of men to create AA, or sexist abuse laws? Men do *not* hold >sovereignty (in the Rouseauian sense). It is held by powerful voting >constituencies; one of which is NOW. I think that the issue is more complicated than this. For example, the all-male draft is not seen by all men as oppressing men. Many see the opportunity to defend our country as a privilege and a duty -- one that the presence of women in combat would make more difficult. Similarly, not all men see AA as oppressing them. They are willing to give up something for the goal of equality (I'm not arguing here whether AA is the right answer...just how it's perceived by some.) Also, I think that it is easily demonstrable that the alimony, child support, and custody laws predate the existence of NOW or any other effective "women's" lobby. They date from a time when women were not supposed to be out working. I'd be surprised if any supporter of women's and minority rights doesn't oppose the poor treatment of gay men (and women, too). But, again, some of the most homophobic people around are men; you don't need NOW or any other constituency to explain point 6.
sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth A. Gordon) (06/04/91)
In article <675774990@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >...After >three years Carter renewed the men-only registration for draft. NOW had >nothing to say about that because it did not care about men. False. NOW sued the Army in an attempt to make the draft co-ed -- arguing that being drafted was a Great Duty of American Citizenship, or some such, and that it was demeaning for women to be excluded. Source: the anthology _Women and Men's Wars,_ edited by Cynthia Enloe. -- -- I can't stand intolerance. : bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!sethg / standard disclaimer : Seth Gordon / MIT Brnch., PO Box 53, Cambridge, MA 02139
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/04/91)
In article <91151.135451DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >For example, the all-male draft is not seen by all men as oppressing men. And the traditional "deal" for women is not seen by all women as oppressing women, the anti-ERA women for example. >Also, I think that it is easily demonstrable that the alimony, >child support, and custody laws predate the existence of NOW or any >other effective "women's" lobby. They date from a time when women >were not supposed to be out working. Thanks for telling us that the federal mandatory child's support guideline pre-dated NOW, I hope that you know when NOW was founded BTW... Anyway, if feminism was a real equal rights movement then it would look for ways for *equal* rights, not for excuses like "it happened before I came."
twain@milton.u.washington.EDU (Barbara Hlavin) (06/04/91)
In article <675774990@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >I have heard feminists' demands for a crack down on fathers who don't pay >child's support, no matter why they don't pay. And I have heard demands from the populace at large for a crack down on those who kill -- whether the cause of death can be argued to be a matter of self-defense, involuntary homocide, negligent homocide, manslaughter, or murder for profit or revenge. That's the nature of the legal system. You investigate the merits of the argument for the deviation from the existing law by examining the particulars of the case. You don't think the law is fair, Hillel? Then what are you doing to change it? You're always quick to challenge those who complain or criticize the status quo by asking what they're doing to make things better. What are *you* willing to do? --Aside from criticizing everyone else, of course. --Barbara -- Barbara Hlavin Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming twain@milton.u.washington.edu in the air and darkening the sky; but I'll nip him in the bud. -Sir Boyle Roche
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/04/91)
In article <15651.2846517e@zeus.unomaha.edu> (Truth or Dare?) writes:
# Hillel points out that President Carter pushed a male registration
# in the seventies. Yes, quite true, Hillel. I remember that. I also
# remember that there was some debate as to whether women would be
# included and I think that the reason Carter ended up pushing the male
# registration is because he knew that a male/female registration would
# never pass through Congress. He wanted a registration and he took
# what he could get.
NOW that talks so much about equal rights had nothing to say about that.
# Alden -- why aren't women going to be drafted anytime soon? I'll
# tell you why. I think that we are in quite a conservative backlash
# in this country, for one thing.
The conservative backlash is, in *my* opinion, a result of a strong
disappointment. The promised liberal paradise did not come, and people
are tired of all the excuses.gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun3.224400.897@milton.u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.EDU (Barbara Hlavin) writes: >You don't think the law is fair, Hillel? Then what are you doing >to change it? I don't think that "big changes" can come right now. Opportunities to make a *change* are quite rare, and the last one was in the Vietnam war time. For time being I point out problems I see and talk about possible solutions. The idea is to prepare the tools/ideas/goals for a real equal rights movement, and to wait for the next opportunity to come. *IF* you have a better way, I'm willing to listen.
ben@cs.warwick.ac.UK (Ben Dessau) (06/04/91)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >I have heard feminists' demands for a crack down on fathers who don't >pay child's support, no matter why they don't pay. The fact the women >have had a choice for abortion the last 17 years makes no difference >for feminist organizations. They also want the choice to take the >father to the cleaners, if they feel like that. How can you say, Hillel, that a woman would have a *choice* of whether to have an abortion or not, in your senario of men being relieved of their financial obligations if he wanted an abortion and she didn't. The woman's *choice* comes down to: have an abortion or keep the child and suffer major financial problems for a long time. In the UK single mothers have the choice of leaving their child with child - minders / creche, (which a lot of women don't want to do) or live on government benefits which are pitifully small. This seems to remove the *choice* aspect completely. -Ben -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: "What do you say to people who | Ben Dessau cs/res/ben Postgrad accuse you of blatant electioneering?" | ben@cs.warwick.ac.uk A: "VOTE FOR ME!!!" | +44 203 523523 ex 2368
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu> jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes: >In article <1991May29.182720.349@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: [I answered this article once already, and my machine crashed just as I submitted the respose. Since I didn't have a .article copy, I fear it is in the bit bucket. My apologies if these ideas appear twice] >Well, I'm not Sharon, and I *hate* it when men post some blah-de-blah >about men's oppression and "challenge the feminists to refute it" >because it always seems to lead to flame wars, but thinking about this >one led to some food for thought I'd like to share... I challenged Sharon because I respect her opinion as a lucid supporter of women's issues. I neither partake in nor take responsibility for flame wars. Indeed, I found this article to be one of the most insightful contributions made to this group in several weeks, with the exception of the above paragraph. >For each example of men's opression cited, there is a social norm to >which women are oppressed to conform, sometimes more strongly and >sometimes less strongly, depending on the situation, which is the >"other side of the coin," so to speak. Granted. >>1. The draft (this one is more like oppression). > >Women showing strength and agression are seen as "unfeminine" at best, >and dangerous/insane at worst. Women who might otherwise exhibit such >behavior more often are oppressed by social stigma. > >By changing the view of what types of behavior women can/should >exhibit, violent, agressive behavior by women will be seen as >possible, even normal in certain circumstances, and in fact, this type >of behavior can be *demanded* by the state in times of dire need. As >long as society perceives women as incapable of doing the dirty work >of military service, it perceives men as the only ones worth drafting. Quite true. How do you propose to overcome these "social stigma?" >>2. Parental choice (Women have it, men don't). > >Actually, my response to this one is going in the opposite direction: >The current trend it to *take away* women's parental choice as much as >possible (e.g. recent supreme court decision, half a dozen states >considering anti-abortion laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, etc.) >Although the law says one thing (women have choice), social norms >still say the opposite (abortion is wrong, or at least of questionable >morality). More precisely, I contend that our society supports a notion referred to as "family values." Tax law encourages marriage, child support and alimony punish the divorced. It is not just abortion that is scorned; abandoning children is just as, if not more so, taboo. I agree that the systemmatic erosion of Roe v. Wade is very alarming. I support strengthening Roe v. Wade and adding companion legislation for men. >Working towards >freely accepting choice for women will make the opportunity for men to >have choice possible: i.e. as long as women "have no choice" (and that >is what child support seems to assume), why should society consider >giving such choice to men? I'm not sure I understand this. How does the existence of child support preclude the existence of choice for men? >["Choice for men" meaning a male has some sort of opportunity to >legally absolve himself of the financial and moral responsibilities of >parenthood during the same period that the woman could choose "no" and >have an abortion. I'm not sure what exact form this would take. The proposal I have supported works like this. When a woman receives a positive result on a pregnancy test, the medical examiner will be required to inform the woman of her obligation of making a legal disclosure of the pregnancy to the father. This disclosure requires the signatures of both parties and a legal representative. At anytime within 30 days of disclosure, the father may legally waive his rights and responsibilities of fatherhood with the signatures of the same 2 other parties. >Also, I cannot envision the time when a man can choose "yes" over the >objections of a woman choosing "no", because it is too great of an >invasion of individual privacy and freedom to force a woman to have a >child against her will. But, perhaps someday babies can be grown in >incubators for these men? Or it will be possible for them to hire >surrogate mothers who freely choose this occupation without being >coerced by economic desperation? I don't know.] No, the father should not be allowed to choose "yes" over the objections of a woman choosing "no." >Once again, by changing the gender roles, society will perceive men as >potential nurturers, and women as potential breadwinnders. By >fighting the female-gender-stereotypes (and I freely admit many >branches of feminism *don't* fight the women-as-nurturers stereotype), >society will begin to rethink these laws. Society only sees what it >wants to see: if it doesn't want to think that non-conformists exist, >they won't be reflected in the law. It does not necessarily follow that feminisim, by breaking the barriers of gender roles for women, is providing a corresponding service to men. The crux of my argument is that women have *legal* support in their quest for equality, while the men's movement has rallied few, if any, legal advocates. Men who wish to become nurses have no AA to support them. Men who do not wish to assume parenthood have no legal recourse. In general, straight women and some minorities enjoy several advantages not shared by gays, lesbians, Asians, and straight white men. >>4. Rape and domestic abuse law. > >The law comes from the gender-roles of women-as-weak and >men-as-powerful, sometimes too powerful. When the roles expand so >that men can be seen as sometimes vulnerable, and women as sometimes >too strong, as well, then the laws can be reconsidered and >legislatures can talk about women raping men. Once again, due to >gender-roles which oppress both men and women, society only sees what >it wants to. Quite correct. Again, how do you propose to alter these gender roles? >>5. Affirmative Action for only women and minorities. > >Eventually, AA will outlive its usefulness. This will happen when >there is no gender-based and ethnic-based discrimination. Feminism >and civil rights movements are clearly trying to end such >discrimination. I contend that AA will *never* outlive its usefulness. A good study has shown that hiring agents tend to hire and promote people of the same race and gender as the hiring agent. White men hire white men and black women hire black women. This indicates that discrimination is not *male* nature, it is *human* nature. I propose extending AA to cover white males as well as other disadvantaged groups. >While I *do* believe that men hold power (because society-enforced >gender-roles have kept women from this power), I *don't* believe that >the gender-roles which underlie your 6 points were created solely by >men. This may be our only real disagreement. It is true that men hold a disproportionately large number of legislative, judicial, and corporate offices, most of which are elected positions. They have achieved these positions within the dictates of gender roles supported by both men and women (if women did not accept these gender roles, our government would be dominated by women). As you most astutely point out, it is the gender roles *themselves* that hold the power, and dictate the lives of men as well as women. >[I say "certain men's movements" because there are a lot of men's >movements, just as there are a lot of women's movements: I'm thinking >here of movements to *change* gender roles, not movements to >*reinforce* traditions and let men who are being 'emasculated' by >current changes "be men again". While the term "feminist" does not >encompass reactionary women such as Right to Lifer's, I don't know of >a term which distinguishes progressive men's movements from regressive >ones.] Neither do I, but I'm also unfamiliar with this regressive men's movement of which you speak. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche. USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/05/91)
#pay child's support, no matter why they don't pay. The fact the women #have had a choice for abortion the last 17 years makes no difference #for feminist organizations. They also want the choice to take the #father to the cleaners, if they feel like that. In article <1991Jun4.152009.1931@cs.warwick.ac.uk> (Ben Dessau) writes: > How can you say, Hillel, that a woman would have a *choice* of >whether to have an abortion or not, in your senario of men being >relieved of their financial obligations if he wanted an abortion and >she didn't. The woman's *choice* comes down to: have an abortion or >keep the child and suffer major financial problems for a long time. 1) She has one more choice - giving up the child for adoption. 2) It seems to you unfair that the women will "suffer major financial problems for a long time" because of her decision not to abort, but I've not heard you (feminists) complain because the *man* "suffers major financial problems for a long time" because of *her* decision. Somehow, expecting a woman to pay, like a man, the price for her choices is so un-feminine and un-feminist.
oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes: [Janet Carson writes in response to Alden's sixth point about men's disadvantage in society -- that gay men are harassed.] > Lesbians are also harassed in society. This is an example of society, > if not the government, violently enforcing gender-roles. By working > to loosen gender-based restrictions and permit a greater variety of > behaviors by men and women, feminists, gay rights groups, etc. are > trying to combat hate crimes. I'd also point out that I think that gay men get a lot more acceptance in this society than lesbians do. This is probably because as a group, gay men are typically affluent, whereas lesbians are not. Gay men are in a better position to "publicize" themselves in a positive light. Let's take television for an example, since television seems to influence -- if not /mold/ -- the opinions of many Americans. It's quite the fashionable thing on television to have a gay male character. Even soap operas (As the World Turns) have had positive gay male characters. But how many lesbian characters are there on television? Northern Exposure has had a gay male couple on the show, but has only mentioned lesbians. CJ on L.A. Law is the only recurring bisexual female character. L.A. Law's writers didn't feel comfortable making C.J. a lesbian. (Although male and female bisexuals are probably among the most discriminated against in the Gay World, especially if they are out.) It seems pretty obvious to me that the US public is not comfortable with gays but that it is a lot more comfortable with gay males than lesbians. >> Alden writes: If men hold the power, where did I get my six points? > > While I *do* believe that men hold power (because society-enforced > gender-roles have kept women from this power), I *don't* believe that > the gender-roles which underlie your 6 points were created solely by > men. I agree. I believe that men hold the power for the same reason that Janet does. However, this doesn't mean that ALL THE MEN hold all the power over ALL THE WOMEN. Let's not speak in absolutes here. > Similarly for certain men's movements changing notions of > masculinity allowing women to escape from roles they were forced into > because men weren't allowed into certain territories. Do we have any men from the more progressive men's movements around here on soc.women? I'd be interested in hearing from these men -- how do progressive men feel about these "six points" of Alden's? Are there men who feel that they have actually benefitted from feminism? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (06/05/91)
In <675774990@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1991Jun1.034124.8157@beaver.cs.washington.edu> >jcarson@june.cs.washington.edu (Janet L. Carson) writes: >>versa, of course. When feminism works to expand roles for women, and >>thereby change the notions of gender roles, men benefit because they >>are no longer forced to do everything that women weren't allowed to do. >This is a nice theory, but the data just doesn't support it. >In Carter's time there was choice for women in all the states, affirmative >action was enforced and state-ERA was passed in several states. After >three years Carter renewed the men-only registration for draft. Let me see if I understand this. Janet says that when feminism expands roles for women, that helps men in the sense that they are no longer forced to do what women couldn't do before. You then say that women had "choice" (which you don't clarify, abortion rights?), that there was AA and state-level ERA's in Carter's time, but he went ahead with the men only draft. But this confuses me because it doesn't address Janet's argument. In Carter's time, indeed in all of American history, women have been prohibited from combat roles if not from the military entirely. How can you institute an all-person draft if all of your draftees are not potentially eligible for combat? So you still haven't refuted Janet's argument. Women don't yet have combat roles in the military, so the discrimination that men face in the military stands. If women are allowed into combat positions *and* the men-only draft registration is *not* scrapped, then this would be a valid example to counter Janet's argument. But we have to wait and see what happens on that one, as women are not yet allowed combat positions. I think there are better examples to try and argue Janet's point. I would have pointed out, for example, that the expansion of women into the work force has not resulted in men being freed from the pressure or expectation to always be the breadwinner. Or that women's abilities to wear men's clothing has not translated into men being able to wear what they want. Women's expansion into traditionally male professions (such as doctors, lawyers, etc) has not made it easier for men to go into traditionally female professions. Women's expansion into taking on masculine characteristics has not made it easier for men to display feminine characteristics. >NOW had >nothing to say about that because it did not care about men. (Please note that I do not necessarily support NOW's positions, or even that I know what all the positions are for certain.) As for NOW, it would make no sense for it to attack a male-only draft registration (because there are no or few women clamoring for a draft to include them). It would make every sense for it to attack the refusal to allow women into combat roles in the military (because there are women clamoring to get into those roles) -- as it indeed has. I bet that if there were a women+men draft registration, NOW would work to end the draft registration. NOW is an advocacy group for women; it seems silly to expect it to go after male concerns. And, for women, the draft is not (yet) a concern. Any "good" lobby listens to the concerns of its constituents. I think you should just say that you disagree with NOW instead of expecting it to listen to other groups. That sounds like arguing that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League should listen to the concerns of non-Jewish people ("You point out all the instances where Jews are discriminated, well how about BLACKS or HOMOSEXUALS?? What kind of organization is this that looks only at JEWS, huh?")... --Cindy -- ``Gender is a category that will not go away. As Goffman put it: `it is one of the most deeply seated traits of man.' '' -- _You Just Don't Understand_, pg 287 tittle@ics.uci.edu
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/05/91)
#After #three years Carter renewed the men-only registration for draft. NOW had #nothing to say about that because it did not care about men. In article <1991Jun3.223435.27185@athena.mit.edu> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth A. Gordon) writes: >False. NOW sued the Army in an attempt to make the draft co-ed -- >arguing that being drafted was a Great Duty of American Citizenship, or >some such, and that it was demeaning for women to be excluded. >Source: the anthology _Women and Men's Wars,_ edited by Cynthia Enloe. 1) Are you sure that *NOW* sued the *Army*? (The registration for draft is not done by the army, you know...) 2) Did they sue before the 1980 election, when they could hurt Carter chances, or after the election when it made no difference anymore? 3) Was there any *political* pressure against Carter because of his decision? (Weak presidents are very vulnerable before the election.)
DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.EDU (Jon J Thaler) (06/05/91)
In article <675992114@lime.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) says: >Thanks for telling us that the federal mandatory child's support guideline >pre-dated NOW, I hope that you know when NOW was founded BTW... No, I don't know when NOW was founded. But I bet it wasn't in the nineteenth century.
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (06/05/91)
In article <15651.2846517e@zeus.unomaha.edu> oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (Truth or Dare?) writes: [Muffy bitches and moans about women not being drafted] [I bitch and moan about men being drafted] > If you have a problem with the way that > current draft policy is set, then you really should call your > congressman or state representative and make your feelings known. Hear hear! > Alden -- why aren't women going to be drafted anytime soon? I'll > tell you why. I think that we are in quite a conservative backlash > in this country, for one thing. And I think that our society has a > view of women that is much too patronizing and protective. I agree > with you that a Male Draft isn't fair. I just don't think you're > putting the blame for the situation on the right people. Blame the > politicians. Don't blame the women. Insightful and almost exactly correct. Women do *not* deserve blame for any of my now infamous 6 points, including the draft, but neither would I place blame on the politicians. Those offended by aimless ranting and raving please skip the following paragraph. <Flame on> Who's responsible? The morons who voted for a President that appointed Supreme Court justices that have systematically eroded Roe v. Wade. The morons who voted for a state senator who supports censorship and restriction of the NEA. The morons who voted for a President who thinks the greatest social issue in this country is flag burning. The problem with this country is that the electorate is very uncomfortable with the act of thinking, but very receptive to a 1 minute sound bite. <Flame off> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, the Chaste. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Become who you are!" - F. Nietzsche. USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (06/07/91)
In article <676012995@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: > > For time being I point out problems I see and talk about possible > solutions. The idea is to prepare the tools/ideas/goals for a > real equal rights movement, and to wait for the next opportunity > to come. Sounds like a cop-out to me. In Vietnam (your example) nobody "gave" anyone the opportunity to make change. There were enough people with the courage to get off of their duffs to MAKE it happen! Talk is cheap. The price of action is much greater. But actions are what shape the world. It may serve a purpose to "point out problems I see", but there are already too many umpires. We need more people to actually carry the damn ball down the field! ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population | \ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- control, as | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------|Anyone who does | long as it's | == "Hey man, I wasn't |Looking4luv|not get 8 hugs a | with someone | ---/ even here then!" |Settle4sex!|day is in trouble| else's kids!"| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/07/91)
# For time being I point out problems I see and talk about possible # solutions. The idea is to prepare the tools/ideas/goals for a # real equal rights movement, and to wait for the next opportunity # to come. In article <1991Jun5.141436.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> writes: >Sounds like a cop-out to me. In Vietnam (your example) nobody "gave" >anyone the opportunity to make change. There were enough people with the >courage to get off of their duffs to MAKE it happen! In the Vietnam war the Military-Industrial-Complex made many mistakes, gave promises it could not keep and was in a desperate need to save its ass. It's pretty easy to win against an opponent that just tries to survive, if you just don't make too many mistakes. Compare the Vietnam era demonstrators to the demonstrators we saw on TV six months ago. They were *fully* prepared to the previous war with their predictions about "20,000 dead" and how California would become black if the Kuwaiti oil fields would burn. Some people don't realize that methods that can work when you go down the hill with a back wind don't work too well in different conditions... E.g the feminists who got, in Congress, 90% support for the ERA in the early 70's, but lost the fight in the early 80's have never understood this simple rule, but the rule still exists. >Talk is cheap. The price of action is much greater. But actions are >what shape the world. The CO of the last war pay a similar price to the CO of the Vietnam war, but they make no real difference... >It may serve a purpose to "point out problems I see", but there are >already too many umpires. We need more people to actually carry the >damn ball down the field! If you carry the ball in the opposite way then you might feel that you "do something," and be very happy about yourself, but somewhere down the road you are going to lose, big. >\\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "I favor population | Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Not just effort need to be expended. The right effort need to be expended." -- d'baba Duane M. Hentrich