judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) (10/31/90)
There has been a lot of talk about how feminism has oppressed men. I thought it time to refresh the screen and look at what feminism has done to free men. Last night I was flipping channels and noticed Hal Holbrook's new sitcom. I thought that this sitcom, which attempts to picture men who are real people (as opposed to macho, pistol weilding heros). I was thinking how that sitcom couldn't have come about without Designing Women and it got me thinking. Naturally my mind wandered over to my husband. Feminism has given men the freedom to be human beings. They no longer have to posture. They no longer have to be all knowing, all powerful bread winners caring for half the population (who are obviously too weak to care for themselves). Now that women can succeed in the work place, men can succeed on the homefront. My husband is a fabulous Dad. He takes impeccable care of the children. He is a wonderful cook, can get stains out of anything in the laundry, and manages to save us enormous amounts of money in his managing of the household. Believe me, I appreciate these skills. I don't have them. Without feminism, he would be working at a job he hates and we would be living in squalor eating hot dogs and beans (actually, I am a good cook, but I hate cooking consistantly so we'd have about one good meal a week). So, I think all and all, men have benefited from feminism far more than they have been oppressed. Judy
jet@karazm.math.uh.EDU ("J. Eric Townsend") (11/06/90)
In article <18940@oolong.la.locus.com> judy@altair.la.locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >Feminism has given men the freedom to be human beings. They no longer have >to posture. You can say that again. (Although I think our society requires everybody to posture occasionally, regardless of gender/class issues.) I forget how far things have come until I go see my relatives deep in the heart of Louisiana. (Anybody remember "Deliverance"? :-) Perhaps the best thing that "feminism" (nebulosity meter just peaked) has done for me, as a male, is given me "permission" to be open and honest about my feelings, my upbringing, and where I'm at now. (Granted, things aren't perfect. It's still hard for me to let my guard down around any man other than one of my best friends, but I'm working on that as well...) My (ln e) cents... -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
hjn@bcstec.uucp (Henry Noble) (11/06/90)
I agree completely. In general, how can any of us be free while some of us are held back? I have gained so muchboth in terms of self-awareness and in terms of fighting for what I believe in from feminists that ai can barely recognize the man I was years ago. I consider myself a feminist and am active in my union (Machinists), at work, and in the community generally in this regard. Also, it's nice not having to be a rambo-derivative.
jha@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.UK (Jamie Andrews) (11/09/90)
Judy Leedom Tyrer: >>Feminism has given men the freedom to be human beings. They no longer >>have to posture. J. Eric Townsend: >You can say that again.... >Perhaps the best thing that "feminism" (nebulosity meter just peaked) >has done for me, as a male, is given me "permission" to be open and >honest about my feelings, my upbringing, and where I'm at now.... I would have to disagree. I don't think feminism as a whole has caused whatever movement there has been in this direction. What has been doing this is the associated men's liberation movement, and the parts of the feminist movement which support it. Some parts of the feminist movement specifically denigrate and deride men's lib, and insist that men do not need any more "freedom" than they already have. There is still a lot of pressure on men to posture. Men still find that they are rewarded for acting macho (as long as they do not question the goals of feminism), even by feminist women. Movies, TV, advertising, schooling, romantic interaction still all promote the stereotype of the man as the brutal, emotionless sex machine. Sorry, but we've got a long way to go, baby. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "Whoa dere, renaissance guy! Ya coulda stopped at out ta lunch!"
jha@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (11/10/90)
Judy Leedom Tyrer: >>Feminism has given men the freedom to be human beings. They no longer have >>to posture. J. Eric Townsend: >You can say that again.... >Perhaps the best thing that "feminism" (nebulosity meter just peaked) >has done for me, as a male, is given me "permission" to be open and >honest about my feelings, my upbringing, and where I'm at now.... I would have to disagree. I don't think feminism as a whole has caused whatever movement there has been in this direction. What has been doing this is the associated men's liberation movement, and the parts of the feminist movement which support it. Some parts of the feminist movement specifically denigrate and deride men's lib, and insist that men do not need any more "freedom" than they already have. There is still a lot of pressure on men to posture. Men still find that they are rewarded for acting macho (as long as they do not question the goals of feminism), even by feminist women. Movies, TV, advertising, schooling, romantic interaction still all promote the stereotype of the man as the brutal, emotionless sex machine. Sorry, but we've got a long way to go, baby. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "Whoa dere, renaissance guy! Ya coulda stopped at out ta lunch!"
jet@karazm.math.uh.EDU ("J. Eric Townsend") (11/13/90)
In article <9789.9011071557@subnode.lfcs.ed.ac.uk> jha@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.UK (Jamie Andrews) writes: > I would have to disagree. I don't think feminism as a >whole has caused whatever movement there has been in this >direction. What has been doing this is the associated men's >liberation movement, and the parts of the feminist movement >which support it. What men's liberation movement are you talking about? Any journals or books you'd care to cite? I'm serious -- I have absolutely no information regarding this "movement". If it exists, I'm glad, and I want to know more about it. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 EastEnders list: eastender@karazm.math.uh.edu Skate UNIX(r)
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (11/16/90)
I agree. The feminist movement has done a great deal to help men.
Women were the first to stand up and point out the useless and
cumbersome gender roles that are constricting all of us. The
feminists of the 60s & early 70s in fact were unashamed in their
advocation of the liberation of women AND men.
I think men owe a great debt to feminism for showing us that sex roles
aren't written in stone -- that they can be challenged.
When I criticize feminism today, I do so in the context of great
respect for what the feminist movement has advanced. My complaint
with today's feminist movement is that, IMHO, it has retreated from
the moral high ground of advocating gender equality and justice and
has become essentially a lobby for women.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"In the mommy track women are just finding out what men have known
all along about the high cost of being good parents."
-- Donna Schaper & Warren Goldsteingazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/16/90)
In article <18940@oolong.la.locus.com> (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes: >Feminism has given men the freedom to be human beings. They no longer have >to posture. They no longer have to be all knowing, all powerful bread >winners caring for half the population In a situation where there is a record number of divorce cases, and men are the ones who pay, in *most* cases, child's support (and in some case alimony), Judy tells us that men don't have to be bread winners anymore... The choice of a divorced man is either to work harder or not to have family, but of course he does not have to work too hard... We run all these debates before, and the general feminist response was that all the above should not be blamed on feminism, but on the society in large. I think that similar argument can be applied on what Judy says. She did not bring any data to support her notion that all the good changes are a result of feminism. But I have a deeper disagreement with her. We still have the situation where men live 10% less; it seems to me as a result of cultural pressures on men. She is absolutely sure that men are *better* off and just ignores a piece of *hard* data that does fit in. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There is only one difference between child support and alimony, child support isn't tax deductible." -- Allen WELLS
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (11/17/90)
You might be interested in this little tidbit. Last year, the gap between the life expectancies of men and women narrowed for the first time since early in this century. Men's death rates for cancer and heart disease dropped in the 1980s, while women's cancer rates increased and their heart disease rates dropped only slightly. Frederick W. Hollman of the Census Bureau said a major contributor to this was the changing patterns of disease as more and more women took up smoking and moved into traditionally male-dominated jobs and lifestyles. "If behavior (between the sexes) is converging, then you have to expect mortality rates to converge also." Look for this to happen again in the 1990s, unless, of course, we go to war in the Middle East, which might screw up the statistics a bit. :-( We've got a long way to go, baby, but we've started out anyway... -- ************************ dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU *************************** "`You'd think they were shot dead,' the president [Novice G. Fawcette, of Ohio State University] said, indicating annoyance at the publicity." News item, May 2, 1970, two days before the Kent State shootings.
greg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) (11/18/90)
In article <657517070@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >We still have the situation where men live 10% less; it seems to me as >a result of cultural pressures on men. She is absolutely sure that >men are *better* off and just ignores a piece of *hard* data that does >fit in. First, a 10% shorter lifespan *could* be because of cultural pressures. Or, it could be because of behavioral differences; if men live shorter lives because they more often choose to smoke, or to abuse alcohol, or to partake of unhealthy practices of any kind, I don't think that that makes them less "better off." After all, they did have a choice in the matter. Culture or no culture. In fact, it is arguable that what has, historically, made men "better off" is that their range of choices has been greater. Men have historically had more of a choice as to whether or not they bowed to cultural pressures than have women. There, is, too, the distinct possibility that the 10% difference is at least partially accounted for by little-understood biochemical factors. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that a greater span of years, by 10%, necessarily makes one "better off." Certainly in many cultures (notably in Judaic theology, where we frequently see age equated with prosperity) it is so. However, it seems to me that it is the richness of the life which is lived, not its span, which makes one "better off." The fruits of that greater span can be most bitter and lonely. Of all of the aged widows whom I've known, none have considered themselves "better off" for having outlived their husbands. In fact, most seem to have considered themselves just the opposite. They have, by and large, have had an abiding sadness at having had their life partner taken from them. Added to that, there has been a sense of despair of ever finding another person to fill that void, even if they have wanted to (and it is very difficult for most of them to even think of loving another with the same depth). So I have serious reservations about Hillel's arguments concerning women being "better off." The data does not strike me as being quite as *hard* as all that. Greg
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/23/90)
In some article Greg Bullough <greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.COM> writes: >First, a 10% shorter lifespan *could* be because of cultural >pressures. Or, it could be because of behavioral differences; if men >live shorter lives because they more often choose to smoke, or to >abuse alcohol, or to partake of unhealthy practices of any kind, I >don't think that that makes them less "better off." After all, they >did have a choice in the matter. Go back and read the previous articles. They talked about women who starve themselves and how the social pressures destroy their lives. *No* one said that women should not complain about the social pressures, starving yourself is just "a choice in the matter". But when the talk is about men who drink too much, smoke too much, work too hard, take stupid risks just to "prove" that they are men then we get an explanation that these things have little to do with social pressures, just behavioral differences... That's what *I* call "feminism in action"... >Culture or no culture. In fact, it is >arguable that what has, historically, made men "better off" is that >their range of choices has been greater. I'm talking about the situation *today*. Women have a wider range of choices how to be successful, while for men have just one area - work. Women can also change course - stay home for a couple of year, and then go back to work. They can also pick professions that they enjoy while men are under pressure to "go for the gold". (I met quite a few male engineering students who were unhappy with that "choice".) >than have women. There, is, too, the distinct possibility that the 10% >difference is at least partially accounted for by little-understood >biochemical factors. \begin{sarcasm} The fact that so many women starve themselves, paint their faces, etc, may be partially accounted by little-understood biochemical factors. \end{sarcasm} Would you mind to extend your argument please? Try to fit into it some hard data like the fact that till the 20's century men lived longer, women have more hard-to-detect and dangerous kinds of cancer (men big killers, like stomach and lung cancers have little to do with hormones) and most women's death cases happen *long* after the sex hormones' production have almost stopped. >Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that a greater span of years, by 10%, >necessarily makes one "better off." Thank you so much for telling me what's good for me. My grandmother used to say that old age is the only illness that nobody wishes to his enemies; I think that she got that one just right... >off." The fruits of that greater span can be most bitter and lonely. You say all of that in a society where *many* couples get divorced, and women get the physical custody of the kids in *most* cases. But men of course should not be "bitter and lonely" because of that... >Of all of the aged widows whom I've known, none have considered >themselves "better off" for having outlived their husbands. And therefore they are not better off... >So I have serious reservations about Hillel's arguments concerning >women being "better off." The data does not strike me as being quite >as *hard* as all that. Is there any data that can change *your* mind about the subject? (My guess that the answer is "no".) I got one e-mail from a woman who complained that this subject has little to do with feminism, so follow-up is directed to soc.men. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu When I do it to you it's "cultural pressures", when you do it to me it's "behavioral differences".
cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (11/23/90)
In article <0dzH02jze8ja01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Greg Bullough <greg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.COM> writes: >[stuff about men "choosing" smoke, and men having a greater range of choices than women] I wonder to what extent it makes sense to say that men choose to smoke. You know all the stuff about nicotine being so addictive. Also, I don't think men really "choose" to be killed in wars (about the same that women "chose" to be housewifes) or to be killed in fights with each other. >Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that a greater span of years, by 10%, >necessarily makes one "better off." Certainly in many cultures >(notably in Judaic theology, where we frequently see age equated with >prosperity) it is so. However, it seems to me that it is the richness >of the life which is lived, not its span, which makes one "better >off." The fruits of that greater span can be most bitter and lonely. >Of all of the aged widows whom I've known, none have considered >themselves "better off" for having outlived their husbands. In fact, >most seem to have considered themselves just the opposite. They have, >by and large, have had an abiding sadness at having had their life >partner taken from them. Added to that, there has been a sense of >despair of ever finding another person to fill that void, even if they >have wanted to (and it is very difficult for most of them to even >think of loving another with the same depth). There was a very moving article on [please forgive me, I've forgotten her name] a famous woman lawyer activist in the first issue of the new Ms. Her husband died a while ago, and she says that while many women find the death of a husband to be a relief, she feels bereft of a great love and a great companion. >So I have serious reservations about Hillel's arguments concerning >women being "better off." The data does not strike me as being quite >as *hard* as all that. Pun intended? Remember the good old days when soc.feminism had people excitedly telling each other of great books to check out? I just finished "Life Before Man" by that great Canadian writer, Margaret Atwood. I sort of hated it, because I've been feeling depressed on my own, and trying to read to escape, and it's one of the bleakest books I've ever read. It seems to deny any chance of happiness in life given the wounds that growing up in our society inflicts on most people. People just drifted together and apart without wanting to or really being happy about being together/apart. People stayed together "for the kids" but lost the ability to care about them, or to comfort and hold them. Has anyone read this, and would they consider it feminist? I can't, because I don't see any life-affirming side to it. It stands in complete contrast to "Their Eyes Were Watching God", which, while sad, is sad because of lost goodness. Chris -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful. I am moving from North Carolina before the seating of the next congress.
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (11/23/90)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In a situation where there is a record number of divorce cases, and >men are the ones who pay, in *most* cases, child's support (and in >some case alimony), Judy tells us that men don't have to be bread >winners anymore... That doesn't mean that they PAY anything. >The choice of a divorced man is either to work harder or not to have >family, but of course he does not have to work too hard... That's true only if he pays alimony, and then not really. A while back I got some stats on divores. The man's quality of living goes up 30% and the woman's (who usually has the kids) goes down 60%. Note: I could be wrong on the percentages but I am not wrong on the unevenness of quality of living. This means that the woman has to have a job, take care of the kids. This means that the man has more money to do more things for himself. This produces two things. Divorced mothers who are temped to find men who will raise their standard of living and divorced men who have a higher standard of living. AHHH how sweet it is to be a man, in spite of the feminist movement ;-) Kaveh. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Men are like lizards that bask in the sun, and say "what a nice place | | someone has built for me!"" -The Stone Of Farwell | | Tad Williams | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/23/90)
In article <27312450.6cab@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: >When I criticize feminism today, I do so in the context of great >respect for what the feminist movement has advanced. My complaint >with today's feminist movement is that, IMHO, it has retreated from >the moral high ground of advocating gender equality and justice and >has become essentially a lobby for women. And why had it happened Dave? Why the movement changed the way it treats men so drastically? Have they forgot what they had known 25 years ago? My answer is that they treated men nicely when they thought that they needed our help. When they decided (rightly or wrongly) that they don't need our help anymore then the effort was reversed. Women are better off if men don't compete with them in the traditional women rules. Therefore we see now the fight for women's priority in child custody (just think about the *effort* by NOW to free Dr. Morgan.), while trying to cut into the traditional men's rules by affirmative action. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "I couldn't define "liberation" for women in terms that denied the sexual and human reality of our need to love, and even sometimes to depend upon, a man. What had to be changed was the obsolete feminine and masculine sex roles that dehumanized sex, making it almost impossible for women and men to make love, not war. How could we ever really know or love each other as long as we played those roles that kept us from knowing or being ourselves? Weren't men as well as women still locked in lonely isolation, alienation, no matter how many sexual acrobatics they put their bodies through? Weren't men dying too young, suppressing fears and tears and their own tenderness? It seemed to me that men weren't really the enemy - they were fellow victims, suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill." -- ("The Feminine Mystique", Betty Friedan)
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/27/90)
Somebody wrote: >>In a situation where there is a record number of divorce cases, and >>men are the ones who pay, in *most* cases, child's support (and in >>some case alimony), Judy tells us that men don't have to be bread >>winners anymore... In article <kaveh.658769285@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >That doesn't mean that they PAY anything. That means that they are harassed and they are under *pressure* to earn. >That's true only if he pays alimony, and then not really. A while >back I got some stats on divores. The man's quality of living goes up >30% and the woman's (who usually has the kids) goes down 60%. Note: I That means that marriage is a better deal for a woman than for a man. When the marriage is over then she loses that better deal. She can work as hard as a man, and die as young, but for some reason (in most cases) she is not very interested in the deal...
feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) (11/27/90)
In article <658777310@grad17.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: ... >My answer is that they treated men nicely when they thought that they >needed our help. When they decided (rightly or wrongly) that they >don't need our help anymore then the effort was reversed. Hey, Hillel, *I* need your help. Don't go away mad: We CAN'T make it work without every one of us 8-( >Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) I know it's over, and it never really began, but in my heart it was so real - The Smiths
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (11/30/90)
In Texas, last summer the Rebublican gubernatorial candidate joked that rape is like the weather--if you can't do anything about it, just lie back and enjoy it. This raised a storm of controversy, and got national attention. Kathy Cornhell, president of Austin NOW, was quoted. She pointed out that this was not only an insult to women--that men are very often the victims of rape. In all of the coverage I saw of this remark (and there was tons of it) she was the *only* person to point out that men are also rape victims. And you'll note that the language of the original comment was gender-neutral. But most of the rest of the commentary assumed that rape was only a woman's issue. So I'd say one thing that feminism has done for men here is raise public awareness of men as crime victims. David Throop