From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Flashers and Denial on soc.feminism
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:00:17 GMT

I'd like to respond to comments made by Muffy Barkocy, a moderator 
of soc.feminism, on soc.feminism, regarding denial and insensitivity.
Background:

###[Dave Gross]
### I realize that me-too-ism has irritated many people in soc.feminism,
### but I couldn't help but respond to this post.  Denial and
### insensitivity is yet another sexism complaint that turns out to be a
### two-way street.
##
##[Muffy Barkocy]
##        I see people on
## the net saying that they don't want to work on men's problems first, but
## I have not seen many saying that they do not *exist*.  I could go out
## and find at least a hundred articles right now on my system saying that
## various problems of women's do not exist.
#
#[Don Beaver]
# Actually, a large percentage of the draft debate tends to be:
# "What's the problem?  There is no draft!"  That's denial.  
# Or consider the imbalance in custody decisions: "What's the problem?  
# Men get custody when they fight for it, just ask Phyllis Chesler."


####   [Women's Studies Professor, after flasher joke]
####   "There are still some professors here at Poly who
####    don't realize that making jokes about womens' anatomy
####    constitutes sexual harassment."
###
### So there you have it.  Denial from a professor of the New
### Sensitivity.
##
##This isn't denial at all.  Where did she *deny* that there was a
##problem for men?


===========================================================================
Now, in response to Muffy Barkocy's comments to me on soc.feminism:

In article <9210081351.AA19828@mica.berkeley.edu> muffy@mica.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1b1d9hINNbnh@agate.berkeley.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>Actually, a large percentage of the draft debate tends to be:
>>"What's the problem?  There is no draft!"  That's denial.
>
>It's not denial, it's the truth.  If it's registration you want to work
>on, then say so.  If it's outlawing future drafts, say so.

The comment, as you know, has nothing to do with whether there is
or isn't a draft, or whether it's registration vs. a future draft.

It has to do with feminists who want to deny that a problem exists.
Your statements above are good examples.  You even seem to deny denial.

Why not apply your reasoning to my example you deleted:

  Or consider the imbalance in custody decisions: "What's the problem?  
  Men get custody when they fight for it, just ask Phyllis Chesler."

It's not denial, it's the truth.  Hmm.


>>The natural complaint against feminism, when there is a "big problem
>>for men" that remains unresolved and ignored by feminists, is that
>>feminism sold (and sells) itself as a movement for equality.  When
>>feminism fails to address inequalities against men (and indeed fights
>>for powers that exceed equality), then it lays itself open to criticism.
>
>>This complaint is the wrong response, IMHO; the better conclusion
>>is to realize, as Muffy has often said (and contrary to much of the
>>general perception of feminism), that feminism focuses on gaining
>>"equality" and rights for women, not for all persons.
>
>Actually, this is not what I have said at all.  If you're going to quote
>me, please try to get it right.  What I *have* said, quite frequently,
>is that feminism is focused on problems that affect women strongly.
>That is very different from saying that it is not trying to gain
>equality for all persons.  It *is* trying to gain equality for all
>persons, but the *problems* that it chooses to work on are those that
>directly and seriously affect women.

Here you say it again: feminism focuses on gaining equality and rights 
for women, not [ie. "as opposed to"] for all persons.  It ignores 
men's issues unless they affect women strongly, according to you.

You have previously argued against claims that feminists need to work
on men's rights at all.  If I recall, your argument was not about
the "hypocrisy" of ignoring men's issues, but about the right of
feminists (like anyone else) to work on what affects them the most.

I guess I must be a feminist -- I'm just focused on men's issues.


>Many anti-feminists use the "equality" (meaning every single inequality
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that ever existed) argument to say that feminists should be working on
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>problems that affect men more than women, or they're being hypocrites.
>So, this "general perception" of feminism is actually, in my opinion, a
>creation and tool of the anti-feminists.

I would have considered this a flame against anybody claiming feminism
does not address equality for men.  The "equality argument" need not
be as extreme as your straw woman above.  It is interesting that it was 
accepted to soc.feminism.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2613 soc.men:17786 soc.women:17781