David.Plaut@CS.CMU.EDU (06/19/89)
> I don't think that men are in general have the right to say what is > feminist -- it is something essentially defined by women. > > So men, please, please, sit with your egos quietly for a little while, > at least until some women have spoken about this. Otherwise, the > connection between soc.feminism and feminism will be approaching > non-existent. A number of people have taken offense at the above comments, presumably because they suggest that men should not participate in a discussion about feminism (at least for a while). While I agree wholeheartedly that such a suggestion is inappropriate and detrimental to the purposes of this newsgroup, I think that lurking in there somewhere is a perspective on men's role in feminism that I have found very valuble and think important to forward. I should say at the outset that I don't think this view is RIGHT; just that it has allowed me to listen to, support, and benefit from feminism more than I could have otherwise. Men have been oppressing women for a LONG time. One view of feminism is that it is essentially about eliminating this oppression, whether by establishing the equality of women and men in the current system, or by creating a new system based on different values. In order for any such effort to succeed, what counts as oppression has to be decided by the oppressed and not the oppressors, otherwise the oppressors will tailor the interpretation to suit their purposes (e.g. "...can't you take a joke?"). Thus determining the goals, methods, successes and failures of feminism ultimately rests with women, not with men. (So, for example, the idea that feminism is about eliminating male oppression comes from women.) I always cringe when I hear some man state that he's not sexist; he may sincerely TRY not to be sexist, but judgement of success is not in his hands. That's not to say that men can't or shouldn't contribute to the feminism, or even benefit from it; just that what it's about isn't up to us. In this arena at least, men are not in control. If men have an equal say in feminism, it is only because women CHOOSE to listen to us. Personally (and perhaps in part because I am a man), I find the humility required to take a back seat and not run the show, "sitting with my ego quietly," very difficult. And yet perhaps replacing control with humility--towards ourselves, each other, the planet---is exactly the point.... -Dave
williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (06/19/89)
In article <18182@paris.ics.uci.edu> David.Plaut@cs.cmu.edu writes: > >Men have been oppressing women for a LONG time. ------------- First off, speak for yourself. I get real tired of the attitude that I need to pay for the sins of my ancestors (assuming they had anything to do with), or the sins of other members of a group I happen to belong to by birth (I seemingly had no choice in the matter). >In this arena at least, men are not in control. >If men have an equal say in feminism, it is only because women CHOOSE >to listen to us. >-Dave Second, this is a poor attitude. Was it the slaves who freed themselves in the Civil War? Most of those who died were not black. Are you going to say that they should have shut up and left the blacks to their own devices? I suppose that if the religious right claim we are immoral, we should just sit back because we are not the religious right. I suppose if some theocratic nation claims we are the great satan, we should just sit back because it isn't our business to respond. Perhaps you don't believe in artibration and compromise. If someone has a grievance it is normally considered best if the two sides get together and try to come to an agreement. For one side to be barred from the decision making process provides no checks and balances and does not lead to a resolution or true progress on the issue. Participative decision making is needed to make progress in a free society. You can't have one side dictating to the other -- especially if you want both sides to reform. -wat-
tittle@glacier.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) (06/21/89)
In article <110942@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena1 (William A. Turnbow) writes: - -In article <18182@paris.ics.uci.edu> David.Plaut@cs.cmu.edu writes: -> ->Men have been oppressing women for a LONG time. -------------- - First off, speak for yourself. I get real tired of the attitude -that I need to pay for the sins of my ancestors (assuming they had -anything to do with), or the sins of other members of a group I happen -to belong to by birth (I seemingly had no choice in the matter). When I use this phrase, I do not mean that I think that men today should "pay for" the actions of their ancestors. I am trying to point out from where our current society has come from. Because of this historical oppression, there is much oppression even today, ingrained into this culture, that we are all victims of. It is today that much of the social changes are occuring. For you to not feel uncomfortable, would you rather that no change occur? Remember that both women and men can be uncomfortable with the changes, it is not a free ride for any one group. ->In this arena at least, men are not in control. ->If men have an equal say in feminism, it is only because women CHOOSE ->to listen to us. ->-Dave - Second, this is a poor attitude. Was it the slaves who freed -themselves in the Civil War? Most of those who died were not black. -Are you going to say that they should have shut up and left the -blacks to their own devices? Contrary to popular opinion, the Civil War was not fought over the question of whether or not slaves should be set free. It was essentially an economic struggle between the North and South -- involving slavery inasmuch as the South's economy was based on slavery. The Emancipation was not declared until near the end of the war. And that "freedom" was precious little. It took another century for blacks to actually attain civil rights -- and Martin Luther King Jr. was black. But I digress. - I suppose that if the religious right claim we are immoral, we should -just sit back because we are not the religious right. I suppose if some -theocratic nation claims we are the great satan, we should just sit back -because it isn't our business to respond. These are better examples. - Perhaps you don't believe in artibration and compromise. If -someone has a grievance it is normally considered best if the two -sides get together and try to come to an agreement. For one side to -be barred from the decision making process provides no checks and -balances and does not lead to a resolution or true progress on the -issue. Participative decision making is needed to make progress in a -free society. You can't have one side dictating to the other -- -especially if you want both sides to reform. I do have reservations about that last paragraph, because it depicts women and men as opposing groups -- "arbitration" does not sound particularly cooperative. Who would the judge be? Rather, I believe that we should include men, simply because I believe that the changes we are working for can be of benefit to all. Excluding men will result in one side or the other dictating. So we sort of agree. --Cindy -- Anyone's death diminishes me, \ | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu Because I am involved in Humanity, /\ | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet And therefore never send to know | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee | USNAIL: POB 4188 Irvine CA 92716
arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) (06/25/89)
>Men have been oppressing women for a LONG time. One view of feminism >is that it is essentially about eliminating this oppression, whether >by establishing the equality of women and men in the current system, >or by creating a new system based on different values. In order for >any such effort to succeed, what counts as oppression has to be >decided by the oppressed and not the oppressors, otherwise the >oppressors will tailor the interpretation to suit their purposes ... This is circular reasoning. The oppressed get to decide what counts as oppression, but then "those who have experienced oppression" is used to define who "the oppressed" are. -- "The fact is self evident from the text and requires no supporting argument." --Tim Maroney Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)