pat%chmsr@gatech.EDU (06/05/89)
[Ordinarily, I wouldn't post these type of meta questions (I would
usually answer them directly), and ordinarily I would just pass along
articles without comment. But since we've just started up, I'll make
an exception here and comment at the end on the reasons why we aren't
going into other types of discrimination.]
----------
Hi Folks!!
umm, silly question, but exactly what did you mean when you
mentioned "discrimination against men" and the amounts that would
be tolerable? I'm relatively naive, and usually just scroll thru all
the flaming bullshit that seems to crop up now and again between certain
male chauvanist pigs and their just as corney female counterparts.
Seems to me, since this is pretty much a public access forum, that
discrimination against anyone of any race, color, creed, or sex would
be rather rude, if not illegal. Anyone propagating such discrimination
ought to stop and think about what they are doing for a moment before
continuing. There are always at least two views to a situation.
Discrimination against an "opposing" viewpoint is a simple fear response
which must be overcome. If all you want is a "private club" type forum
which you can escape to when you wanna talk about "those awful ________"
(fill in blank), then I truly feel sorry for you and hope you grow
out of that clic mentality which is so constraining. If on the other hand,
you wish to learn and enjoy life to its fullest, please proceed.
hopefully yours,
Pat
Pat Ortman
UUCP: pat@chmsr.UUCP
...!{allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,ulysses}!gatech!chmsr!pat
INTERNET: pat@chmsr.gatech.edu
----------
[We've repeatedly stated that this will be a forum for the discussion
of feminism, pro's and con's. Both viewpoints will be welcomed here.
We wish to concentrate on the problems of discrimination against
women, and do not want the discussion to become solely a litany of
"all the discrimination that happens against men, women aren't the
only ones with problems." We recognize that men also get stereotyped
and that they can face discrimination, but we consider this a separate
topic, not to be addressed in this forum. Discrimination against men
may very well come up in relation to feminism (an example might be the
charge that feminism discriminates against men), but we do not want to
focus on men's problems separately.
Note that this does not mean we condone such discrimination.
The topic of discussion here is feminism, not anti-discrimination in
general. We do not condone any kind of discrimination on the basis of
race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation; but these more general
topics won't come up here, except as related to feminism.
--Cindy]djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/06/89)
In article <whatever> Cindy Tittle wrote: >We wish to concentrate on the problems of discrimination against >women, and do not want the discussion to become solely a litany of >"all the discrimination that happens against men, women aren't the >only ones with problems." We recognize that men also get stereotyped >and that they can face discrimination, but we consider this a separate >topic, not to be addressed in this forum. Discrimination against men >may very well come up in relation to feminism (an example might be the >charge that feminism discriminates against men), but we do not want to >focus on men's problems separately. I understand this viewpoint, and to a limited extent agree with it, but only to a limited extent: you can _not_ take a problem out of context and have even the slightest hope of dealing with it in a useful or realistic manner. Or, more specifically, the problems facing feminism [a term I dislike because it *is* decontextual and separatising] do not exist in a vacuum. Any attempt to discuss the roles of women in society without discussing the complementary roles of men is futile, intellectually equivalent to an ecological discussion of the flora of a region without any mention of its fauna. (Which is not to imply that women are somehow vegetative or passive, even in our culture; the analogy is only intended to illustrate the degree and complexity of the interplay between the two sets of roles.) To give one concrete example before I get on with my high-falutin' theorizing: feminism has provided women in this society with a large and valuable set of positive, and frequently non-sexist, role-models. However, men in this society are still presented with only two semi-viable role models: the John Wayne/ Humphrey Bogart ultramacho role, and the Don Knotts/Caspar Milquetoast wimp. Everything else is presented as a variation on those two roles. [About here, someone is going to mention Alan Alda. Please don't. I just ate and I'd like to keep it.] And, until men of goodwill develop roles complimentary to the positive roles offered for women, the female roles will not work: they will be constantly and often viciously rejected by male society, even by men of general good will toward the "feminist" movement, because *they*will*have*no*way*of*dealing*with*women*in*these*roles*. Ergo: the creation of nonsexist roles for men is a vital concern of "feminism." I could go on into other regions (e.g., gay-bashing, racism, etc.) and demon- strate that they, two, are intimately entwined in any hope of ultimate success for "feminism." Or I could give dozens of other examples of how "feminism" must ultimately deal with so-called "men's issues" if any useful resolution of so- called "women's issues" is to be reached. But, in the interest of space, I'll assume my basic point made and go on with the theory. The problem is not sexism, or racism, or sexualism, or nationalism, or anything else people normally point to: it is a gravitically oriented power matrix, where power must be "over" someone else; where in order for someone to be "on top" they must "put down" other people and "climb over" them. To cure (say) sexism without curing the underlying gravitically oriented power matrix is merely to assure that discrimination against women will be replaced with equal or worse discrimination against some new group (left-handed people? redheads? Catholics?) or increasingly violent discrimination against some already- discriminated-against group (Poles? Blacks? Catholics?). Further, I'm not convinced that in such a matrix "feminist' goals *can* succeed. In a gravitically based power matrix, one seeking power will use any differentiation between oneself and "others" to force imbalance, thus pushing oneself toward the "top of the heap." Ultimately, the only useful solution is to destabilize the orientation of society -- perhaps Western society, but I suspect most human societies have some such matrix -- toward hierarchical power structure. Perhaps it would be sufficient to replace vertical power distribution with horizontal power distribution. This is the idea behind, for example, the "checks & balances" division-of-powers in the U.S. Constitution. Does it seem to you to be working? If so, then you can believe that a horizontal power distribution among the various people in society is a workable solution. I'd like to think so myself. If, however, you believe -- as many do -- that this has merely replaced tyrannical rule by a single power center with rule by three tyrannical power centers, then you can not believe that a society based on a horizontally distributed power matrix will solve the problems of conflict between identifiably "different" groups in society. In that case, there are only three viable solutions: 1) Ensure that whatever identifiably "different" groups you personally belong to have the greatest possible piece of the power pie. This is the way American society currently works; power belongs to whoever organizes the largest contingent of supporters who believe they are part of the same group as him. pronoun deliberately reflective of American society.] 2) Ensure that whatever identifiably "different" groups you personally believe will do the fairest and/or most effective job of wielding power have the greatest possible possible piece of the power pie. This is the theory behind monarchy and aristocracy. It also tends to break down to #1 *very* quickly. 3) Do away with power-oriented societal matrices altogether. This is the most radical of the three solutions and may be completely impossible. However, I suggest that anything less is an abrogation of the aims of social equality. Further, it seems more possible as technology increases the means of defeating systems of wielding and distributing power. Sorry to go on at such length, but the topic seemed important. Hope this spurs some discussion. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
annmh@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ann Harrington) (06/07/89)
You men, always talking about power and control! :)
Frankly, I don't think the point of feminism or discussions about
women`s rights is to find a new "ruler" of society. You talk about
who will be in/have power as if we're trying to set up a new form
of government! As far as I can see, the problems of inequal rights
for women in the past have been due to the shape of ALL of society,
not just governmental systems, educational systems, parents, men, women,
business, etc. Blaming any one of these for inequality is ignoring
the complete picture, and trying to "overthrow" any one of these or naming
just one as an "oppressor" is likewise narrow-sighted. Over and over it
has been shown that placing blame is all well and good for making people
feel righteous and just, but it doesn't get any changes made.
One of the most frustrating things about maturing as a woman has been
discovering *within myself* a lot of old-fashioned, 'helpless',
traditionally feminine (i.e. weak, indecisive, helpless, incompetent, even
'man-needing') misconceptions. I find these things in unconscious feelings
that I would never believe in conscious thought! So, one thing I have
gathered from this, is that in spite of supportive, feminist mothers, and
supportive feminist fathers (discussion?), and all those wonderful
things that make up a supportive environment, it isn't enough, and the
"enemy" isn't entirely an outside force.
It is often easier to blame it all on outside forces, "other" groups,
but we also have to change ourselves, and that is often harder.
So, if you must word things in terms of war, remember that part of the
"enemy" is indeed us, ourselves.
-Ann
----------
annmh@blake.acs.washington.edugazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/07/89)
In article <11866@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> annmh@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ann Harrington) writes: >You men, always talking about power and control! :) What *exactly* do you try to tell us? Do you try to induce guilt feelings? [I think what Ann was getting at is that power and control are not necessarily the only issues and that a viewpoint which doesn't focus on struggles for dominance may be more productive. - MHN] >just one as an "oppressor" is likewise narrow-sighted. Over and over it >has been shown that placing blame is all well and good for making people >feel righteous and just, but it doesn't get any changes made. Placing blame is a powerful tool to manipulate people. Do you think that you (feminists) could achieve AA without inducing guilt feeling on men? > It is often easier to blame it all on outside forces, "other" groups, >but we also have to change ourselves, and that is often harder. You got it right, but you got it too late. By looking inside the feminist movement will lose some of the power it has, and it's not going to do it. No matter what you say/do, you're 10 to 20 years too late... [Too late for what? Feminism has changed considerably since its inception in the 1700's. Changes in the past 20 years have been more rapid but so have societal changes in general. Can opponents of feminism learn to judge people by what they believe now rather than what they believed 20 years ago in a radically different world? - MHN] Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "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
holstege@polya.stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) (06/09/89)
I think Dan'l is right to point out the need to consider these issues
in context, but I think this talk of role models misses the boat
slightly. In my experience, when people start talking about the need
for role models, the conversation usually takes a very separatist
route shortly thereafter: role models for women, role models for
hispanic women, role models for old hispanic women, role models for
old hispanic women with no children... and so on ad absurdum.
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is not a lack of role models,
but a role structure twisted by an exclusive focus on the competitive
model of human behaviour. If everyone is competing for everything,
then there are only two roles: winner or loser, victimiser or victim,
Rambo or Pee Wee, pushy bitch or pin-up doll. This compulsion to view
everything in terms of competition is particularly popular here in the
good old US of A, where the idea is taken to its logical extreme,
which I like to call the `guppy theory of humanity': the idea that
people are as a-social as guppies and succeed or fail purely by their
own intrinsic merits, on their ability to swim fast the moment they
pop out into the big wide world.
Now there is another model of human behaviour, which stresses
cooperation. It should be fairly obvious and uncontroversial that
people are, in fact, social beings; that they rely on one another to
get by and to flourish, at the very least as chidren, but most likely
throughout life. Historically, those who had little or no access to
resources (women, for example, or blacks in modern urban American)
have stressed the cooperative model more out of simple necessity. I
think that is why the poor, minorities, and women traditionally tend
to think along more `socialist' lines.
Please note, I am not talking about Communism here, nor advocating an
abandonment of the competitive model of humanity (it is partly right
too). (As recent events in China show us, if we needed the reminder,
Communism is fundamentally based on the competitive model of humanity
too. Victimiser or victim; oppresssor or oppressed.) What I am
talking about is realising that for many roles we play in life, the
competitive model is not only inappropriate, but is downright
destructive. In the first instance, marriage is not a social
relationship that works very well when understood as a competition
rather than as a cooperative endeavour. In the second instance,
businesses that treat their employees as partners in a joint venture
rather than as potential thieves and vandals do a lot better (and make
everyone a lot happier, methinks). Does one compete with one's
children, or help them?
So, back to starting point, role models for women and for men. I
don't think much is gained by having women adopt `male' roles from the
competitive role structure, any more than the Russians gained anything
by replacing a Csar by the Politburo. Victimiser or victim -- what is
gained by taking on the role of victimiser, if it leaves other victims
in your place? Men rightly resist adopting the downside role, so what
other choice is there? Pick a different role structure entirely,
brother.
[Why "rightly resist ... the downside role" -- are there no positive
aspects to "traditionally feminine qualities" that a man can adopt?
Likewise, are there no positive aspects of the 'male role' that a
woman can adopt? I don't think that a woman should wholly adopt a
male role either, but see nothing wrong with taking some of its useful
qualities. And vice-versa. --Cindy]
-- Mary
Holstege@polya.stanford.edu
ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu
BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstegegazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/14/89)
Sorry for submitting ny previous article twice. I thought that it got
lost, and the second version was much longer because the moderator
asked me to explain what I meant. --Hillel
[No, this wasn't Hillel's problem -- it was a snafu in the distributor
program. This response is also posted late because I thought it was
another duplicate but instead it really was sent to me. My deepest
apologies to Hillel... --Cindy]
-------------------------
#I think what Ann was getting at is that power and control are not necessarily
#the only issues and that a viewpoint which doesn't focus on struggles for
#dominance may be more productive. - MHN [Miriam]
Feminism hold some power (AA etc.), feminists have always talked about
how men dominate the society, forced women to play feminine rule,
reworte the history etc. And what's Ann's summary?
@You men, always talking about power and control! :) [Ann]
Look Ann, if you don't want to talk about power and control that's
fine with me, but please don't present in the "You men,..." way.
#Too late for what? Feminism has changed considerably since its inception
Too late to look inside, and too late to build trust with most men
(the two issues are related).
#in the 1700's. Changes in the past 20 years have been more rapid but so
#have societal changes in general. Can opponents of feminism learn to
#judge people by what they believe now rather than what they believed 20
#years ago in a radically different world? - MHN [Miriam]
Most feminists say something like "We are for equal rights", and I
agree with that goal. What I don't agree about the way they go.
For example, feminists have claimed that Affirmative Action is the
right war to have more women in engineering. There have been more
than ten years of AA, and by the report that Cindy published in
soc.women the number of women in engineering goes *down*.
The solution? Well, we need more AA...
IMO the feminists are smart enough to see that they lose ground, but
they prefer to lose ground and not to fight discrimination against
men. They have the full right to act this way, but it's clear that my
idea and their idea about equal rights is *very* different.
I don't judge feminists by what they believe because I prefer to judge
them by what they do...
Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu
"Even if one cares passionately and believes in the validity of some Movement,
one can be, at best, only a fellow traveler; and that smacks of sycophancy."
-- Harlan Ellisonkenm%maccs.McMaster.CA@windom.UCAR.EDU (....Jose) (06/14/89)
In article <17237@paris.ics.uci.edu> Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.stanford.EDU> writes: >So, back to starting point, role models for women and for men. I > >[Why "rightly resist ... the downside role" -- are there no positive >aspects to "traditionally feminine qualities" that a man can adopt? >Likewise, are there no positive aspects of the 'male role' that a >woman can adopt? I don't think that a woman should wholly adopt a >male role either, but see nothing wrong with taking some of its useful >qualities. And vice-versa. --Cindy] > Not to bore you all with my autobiography, but there was at least one point in my life when I had a role model who was a girl in, of all places, a fundamentalist (ie conservative, right-wing) church I attended during my teen years. She was devout, infinitely respectable, quick witted, a leader among the church's youth, committed to her faith, and alway seemed to know the right thing to do and say in just about any circumstance... she was most definitely my "role model" as a new member of that group, and the idea that her femininity presented a problem never occured to me.... I simply found a different role model to follow for proper attire. I'm sure that this is not an isolated case..... many people must find role models who differ in sex, age , religion, nationality, race, shampoo preference, etc.... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |".sig quotes are dippy"| Kenneth C. Moyle - kenm@sparkles | |- Kenneth C. Moyle | Department of Biochemistry - McMaster University| -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrea@ucsd.EDU (Andrea K. Frankel) (06/15/89)
In article <17669@paris.ics.uci.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >For example, feminists have claimed that Affirmative Action is the >right war to have more women in engineering. There have been more >than ten years of AA, and by the report that Cindy published in >soc.women the number of women in engineering goes *down*. As a woman employed as an engineer, I venture the suggestion that as more women try it and report back on their experiences (informally to friends, more formally to college career fairs and such), some of the women who might have decided to become engineers are picking different fields. Like management, engineering isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, you can earn a decent salary, but after a decade or so one realizes it can be stultifying work that doesn't begin to utilize all the wonderful facets of our talents and personalities. Therefore, I believe it is not necessarily a bad thing that the number of women engineers is going down. A good question would be, of the women who WANT to become engineers, what proportion are getting decent engineering jobs vs. what proportion are un- or under-employed? And another good question: how many women engineers are choosing to enter other fields, and why? There may be "glass ceiling" discrimination (we certainly see it happening here), but there is at the same time a very healthy process of personal values clarification that can lead us to joyfully abandon career paths we previously worked hard to pursue. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) CSNET : andrea%hp-sdd@hplabs.csnet USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
holstege@polya.stanford.edu (Mary Holstege) (06/23/89)
[sorry for the delay in posting this -- it got lost in my during-Usenix mail. -- AMBAR] Aside to moderators: If you want to comment on postings please do it the normal way, by posting follow-ups. I didn't even see this remark until I saw it quoted secondhand. Who reads their own postings? Anyway, about this remark: >> >>[Why "rightly resist ... the downside role" -- are there no positive >>aspects to "traditionally feminine qualities" that a man can adopt? >>Likewise, are there no positive aspects of the 'male role' that a >>woman can adopt? I don't think that a woman should wholly adopt a >>male role either, but see nothing wrong with taking some of its useful >>qualities. And vice-versa. --Cindy] Obviously my terminology has confused you. When I talk about roles I do not mean (and do not believe) that people fill *a* role. People act according to roles in particular relationships depending on how those relationships are structured. Non-hermits act in many roles with many different people. They may act in different roles within a relationship with one person. What I am saying is that nothing is accomplished by accepting the competitive model for structuring relationships, and just allowing women to take the top-dog role. What I am saying is precisely that we should take what has been traditionally, if crudely, called the `feminine' model -- of cooperation -- and restructure our roles in relationships according to that. This has nothing to do with how one makes a living, or whether one spends one's time taking care of children or cooking dinner. For example, I see a lot of soi disant feminists in brutal competition with their husbands trying to get to the point where they happen to earn more money (a measure of which one is winning, you see) because that supposedly makes *them* boss in that relationship. I see nothing admirable in this. Nor anything I would care to call feminist. Swapping bosses is not going to make the world better and a man would be an idiot if he accepted this switcheroo as a step forward. (Using marriage here as indicative of other relationships.) That is what I mean when I say that men rightly reject the downside role. -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege