From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:39:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.015256.17081@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.192132.16286@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr15.171519.21634@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, shortell@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr10.213016.6513@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, men have been told that it is our duty, when another man
>>>>makes a sexist joke or remark, to rebuke him.  Ie.  We have been held
>>>>to blame for the attitudes of other men unless we actively applied peer
>>>>pressure to influence their attitudes in the "proper" direction.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you are in a conversation with another man who makes
>>>sexist or racist or homophobic comments while talking
>>>to you, then you are implicitly supporting his views
>>>if you do not call him on it. 
>
>>In your example the person saying the oppressive things is male
>>(He, him, etc), even though you say you apply the reasoning to anyone.
>
>I was trying to be consistent with my initial response to the poster.
>Since I referred to him with other males in my first sentence, I
>continued with that example throughout my post. Everything I said
>can also be said for people of either gender hanging out with other
>people of either gender.
>
>>Do you apply the same reasoning when a womens' group says things
>>about men?  Have you 'called them on it?'
>
>I actually have in some cases when generalizations have been made.
>While I agree with lots of women that many men say and do
>reprehensible things and have historically had societal support
>for these actions, I like to point out that there are a number
>of men who are sensitive to these issues and who sincerely want
>to change this situation. I have known a few of these men.

You make them seem like rare saints, like the people ABC news
honors as the 'Person of the Week'

>>When I was the only man in a group, the women never 'called'
>>each other on their comments, only I did, and only after a while,
>>when the respected me enough not to call me names for 'calling'
>>them on it.  

>You need to realize that as a man, you may not be the right
>person to "call" a woman on these kinds of issues due to the
>power dynamic granted you by the above societal support. 

And you need to realize that as the only man in a group of women,
with openly anti-male attitudes, the power dynamic is completely 
different.   Especially when most of them had taken self-defense
classes and learned how to hurt men, where I have never been trained
to hurt women.  And they didn't know when to 'call' each other because
they didn't understand what was and what wasn't offensive to men.
Look what women post sometimes, which sounds good in an all female
group, which really offend men, some of which who are the ones
you describe above, who read the group regularly, and who are
(as you say) sensitized to the issues and care about change.

Some women just 'don't get it' with regards to certain issues.
In soc.men, every now and then a light bulb goes on in the
mind of a female poster.  (One even said as much). The people
in the group I'm referring to, just couldn't understand why it bothered 
me to be called a 'potential rapist', or when they say 'men can't understand',
or 'whatever men say on this issue is wrong.'  They couldn't understand 
how something that was 'liberating' to them could be oppresive to me.
And please don't tell me what I do or don't understand unless you are sure.

Whether they offend men or not is not the concern of some of the
people I was describing.  If men are offended, they think it's 
because the men have a problem that hasn't been sufficiently dealt 
with.  (e.g., a man says that he wants to be treated with respect, 
the woman said that he was demanding male privilege).  "The men just 
aren't sensitive enough, or they don't understand, or they are sexist 
and misoginist, and if they went home and did their homework, they 
wouldn't have a problem with men-bashing."  So, they recognize no
criticism as valid, which is some peoples #1 complaint against some
feminists.  It is a conceptual revolution for some to realize that 
they are not completely powerless and what they do can affect men 
who are by their own criteria, innocent.

And if I can't call them on it, then I don't have a voice.  (I assume
you know what this means).  I can only echo what they say.  It means 
I can't emotionally or psychologically defend myself against hostility 
and have to count on one of them to do so, and to know what is in my 
interest.  And women who think they know what is an isn't threatening to 
men don't always know, and it's sometimes offensive when they guess.  
(Kinda like how some whites try too hard to be sensitive to blacks, and
in doing so say ridiculous things like "I saw _Roots_")
It means I need permission to criticize, permission that they have to grant.  
And it certainly means that I have to accept a subservient position.
What I have described is essentially the position that children are in in 
our society.   Would you be in a relationship with anybody in which you were 
not allowed to complain, or all your complaints were seen as a priori 
illigitimate?  Of course, you can say that men do this, but I would not
support this kind of relationship. 

And please don't tell me that this experience is good for me because
I get to see what women have to deal with.  Listening is education enough
without being part of some kind of experiment.  I'll decide what is good
for me and what isn't.  And I know better than anyone else what I have 
and haven't experienced.  

>While
>you may at times have been treated badly by women due to your
>gender, you do not suffer the overwhelming societal discrimination
>that is enacted on women in their daily lives. 

But I do not enact this discrimination, and should not be held 
accountable for it, unless you think it is fair to hold you
accountable for things that you have nothing to do with.

>>And it is for the exact reason that you give above that men (on
>>net and elsewhere) ask feminists whether they agree with or support
>>certain views of Dworkin, Brownmiller, MacKinnon, etc., for by not
>>criticizing them while identifying themselves as feminists, according
>>to your argument, they are implicitly supporting their views.
>
>A great many feminists support the views of these women, but you
>cannot make the above statement unless you know whether or
>not the feminists in question have read these works. Some have,
>some haven't. You would have to ask.

No, it's not that simple.  By identifying oneself as a feminist, one
is participating in a certain kind of discourse.   If someone joins
a frat, it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not he has the
attitudes of the other people in the fraternity, whether or not he
knows them well.  If someone represents a political party, it is fair
to ask them what they think of the people on the extremes of the party.
If I publically support Israel (and I do) it's fair to ask me what I
think of the views of different Israeli political parties.  The same
principle applies.

>Laurel

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Xref: sparky soc.women:8953 soc.men:8434 talk.rape:896 talk.abortion:15183 rec.arts.sf.misc:1424