persons@evax.arl.utexas.EDU (Mike Persons) (01/07/91)
In article <1991Jan2.211619.22870@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >In article <9012052040.AA03770@decpa.pa.dec.com> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: > >>There are some things feminists object to about men, and perhaps some >>of them can or should be changed, but not without consensus with men. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I have to question your definition of a feminist. Are you saying that >only females can be feminists? I know several men who consider themselves >feminists. So, since they're men does that mean they can't be feminists? >By whose authority? And if they *are* feminists and are still considered >men, then doesn't that mean that any redefinitions of society that feminists >propose are done so with the consent of both men AND women? > >Consider this. Only a relatively small fraction of the population actively >considers itself feminist. That fraction consists of both men and women. >Therefore, one must assume that that fraction is working towards a goal >that will satisfy them *regardless* of their sex. Drawing lines and saying >that its a case of "men against women" or "feminists against men" is pointless. >First of all, you can't define two opposing sides by gender when there are >both sexes present on both sides. That's patently ridiculous. > >>Likewise there are some things many men would like to see changed >>about women, which they must be allowed to have their voice in, but >>again consensus with women is needed. > [much relevant debate reluctantly deleted due to space constraints - I hate rereading the entire article so I won't force it on you] Can only females be feminist? This is a question I have pondered and after much cogitation have come up with my own pet theory. My broad definition of "Feminism": A philosophy (maybe not the best word) of attempting to guide society to change so as to be more humane to women. This brings to my mind another definition: Masculism: A philosophy (maybe not the best word) of attempting to guide society to change so as to be more humane to men. I propose this definition because I believe that both men and women are stuck in (maybe too strong, "guided to" perhaps) roles that are assigned to us. These roles have worked to a great extent; our society has survived. But as times change, roles must change, and that is what (I believe) "ism"-type groups are for - to effect these changes. Keeping these definitions in mind, I believe that men can be feminists, just as women can be "masculists" - we can be legitimately concerned about helping the other sex have a better life. However, I think that each sex should focus primarily on their own "ism". Not that it's wrong for me to support feminism, it may even be necessary. But I don't think either sex can be "free" (whatever that means) until the other is "free" also, so focusing on women won't work. Which link in a chain is most important? Perhaps men that criticize feminism feel left out and jealous, with the idea that "Those women are getting some good stuff, and we aren't." If men had a "masculist manifesto" perhaps they'd have better things to do than bash feminism. Of course I can hear the replies from men who don't think they need "liberating", that things are fine as they are. To them I say, it may be so for you, but it isn't for a lot of us. A lot of men (in my opinion) are starting to believe that the old ways aren't working anymore. Rather than put down feminism, I think we should be inspired by what they are trying to do. I think that "masculism" is a good term and should be used more often. I have never seen it used anywhere, even in the "men's liberation" publications. Gosh, could I have invented it? :-) Well, whaddaya think net.land? Time for soc.masculism? :-) Mike -- Michael P. Persons | % grep grep grep persons@evax.utarl.edu | grep persons@evax.arl.utexas.edu | %
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (01/08/91)
In article <1991Jan4.041605.23467@evax.arl.utexas.edu> persons@evax.arl.utexas.EDU (Mike Persons) writes: > [...lots deleted...] > Masculism: A philosophy (maybe not the best word) of attempting to > guide society to change so as to be more humane to men. > I propose this definition because I believe that both men and women > are stuck in (maybe too strong, "guided to" perhaps) roles that are > assigned to us. These roles have worked to a great extent; our > society has survived. But as times change, roles must change, and > that is what (I believe) "ism"-type groups are for - to effect these > changes. Keeping these definitions in mind, I believe that men can be > feminists, just as women can be "masculists" - we can be legitimately > concerned about helping the other sex have a better life. > However, I think that each sex should focus primarily on their own > "ism". Not that it's wrong for me to support feminism, it may even be > necessary. But I don't think either sex can be "free" (whatever that > means) until the other is "free" also, so focusing on women won't > work. Which link in a chain is most important? Fine up to here, but why should people focus on their own? If a man feels that the problems of women are more severe and more important, why shouldn't he focus on those problems? Also, why should these problems be separated? In general, they are intertwined, or "two sides of the same coin." For example, children are often raised in stereotypical gender roles. Some person might feel that this is an important problem. Which of your "isms" does it fit into? And, finally, why should any one person work on all the problems of their "ism"? One of my concerns about feminism is that some feminists think a person has to accept their whole agenda and ideology to be a "real" feminist. I think people should be free to work on whatever problems they are concerned about, and it's good if they can join a larger group that is working on those problems, both for the support that such a group can provide (not feeling like they're the only one working on/concerned about a problem) and because larger groups generally have a better chance of changing the world/society. It is quite unfortunate when people are excluded (or even discouraged) from such a group due to their gender or impure ideology (although I'm not talking about groups which are gender-exclusive for some other reason; that's another discussion). Muffy
lunde@casbash.acns.nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan4.041605.23467@evax.arl.utexas.edu> persons@evax.arl.utexas.EDU (Mike Persons) writes: > My broad definition of "Feminism": A philosophy (maybe not the best > word) of attempting to guide society to change so as to be more humane > to women. I would suggest that feminism is a collection of ideologies distingushed by recognizing the oppression of women and being shaped and informed by the *experience of* women. Different brands of feminism may be interpreted as being benificial to men and women or to women only. In any case the position of men is marginal since they learn about the experience of women second hand. (I like to think of myself as a feminist, but other may disagree.) Men may or may not benifit from feminism in some narrow sense, but we have something to learn from it, perhaps different things than women most need to learn. I would like to call to people's attention the tenth anniversary issue of "Changing Men". It looks like the "Men's Movement" is generating some serious self-reflective (& pro-feminist) thought which goes beyond the new stereotypes and grumbles that developed in its onset. (I've followed it intermittently and am impressed by the changes.) One article talked about the definition of a form of "men's studies" that would be complimentary and supportive of "women's studies". (This distingushed it from the sort of "men's studies" that are the bulk of the academia.) As I recall, the idea was looking at the social costruction of men's roles; as"women's studies" looks at the social construction of women's roles. Another interesting item were multiple reviews of "Refusing to be a Man" by John Stollenberg (?).