From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:45:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.050148.6487@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:

> This is an issue I've tried to raise occasionally, and
> reflects the "revaluation of the feminine" aspect of
> feminism I mentioned in another thread.  Clearly, women
> have, to some extent, been permitted to act "like men",
> whereas men are not permitted to act "like women."  For
> instance, if I, a man, wear lipstick and a dress, I will
> find it difficult to get an ordinary job and may even be
> attacked on the street on the way to an interview.

Possibly, but the example is extreme.
Better, what if you're passive and deferential ?  (ie. a "yes man")  Sounds
like the ticket to (almost) the top of the corporation to me.
Also:  years ago, a woman in male clothing, or acting "masculine" could
have found herself fired from her job (and attacked ?) for projecting the
"wrong" image.
 
> The structure of this prejudice lies, I think, in the
> retention of a "masculinist" or patriarchal system of
> values.  A person who adheres to traditionally masculine
> practices is raising her or his value; a person who
> goes the other way is devaluing herself or himself.
 
No.  It's the result of only partial collapse of bipolar expectations for
men and women.  The screws are pretty much off for women, but possibly a
little tighter for men.  Men who performed greatly masculine deeds like
fighting in Vietnam or tough physical labour would be venerated if the
masculine was preferentially valued.  They ain't.  

> Ironically, the result is that men are more constrained
> than women are, culturally.  In other important areas, 
> such as business management, they may retain an 
> advantage as being more representative of that which
> is traditionally the "better" or "stronger" or more
> "normal" mode of being human -- the masculine.

As has been mentioned in another thread, the "masculine" is only valued
when it is demonstrably successful.  Otherwise, it is a major disadvantage
(eg. homeless women sleep in shelters, homeless men sleep in the street).  
The $64 question: so why should men be more constrained after generally
supporting or acquiescing in changed expectations of women ?  I Dunno.
I might speculate later.

> You can get considerable insight into the situation by
> asking how the restraint is enforced, and by whom.  But
> what motivates them?  Do they, perhaps, think that
> femininity is catching?

I imagine you mean that other men do the policing here, which is generally
true if you think of gross enforcement like gay bashing, but not so much if
you consider typical female preference.  There's an awful lot of young men
wandering around upset with their categorization as "nice guys" and hence
not suitable mating material (not until they have substantial $$$ or a
clearly high-status future, anyway).  Think of the proportion of couples
you know where she has a higher income or social status - feminine
enforcement definitely contributes here too.  Also, an ancient example:
women handing-out white feathers to young men who were not away at war, and
a newer one: women who view Bill Clinton as a draft dodger.


Garry.